Patient-Perceived Barriers to the Adoption of Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHHD) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, although adoption has been limited. Given the known benefits, an understanding of the barriers to adoption is needed. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Patient-perceived barriers were studied through a cross-sectional survey of prevalent hemodialysis patients using validated instruments, study-specific questions, and ethnographic interviews. Fifty-six of 66 NHHD patients and 153 of 199 conventional hemodialysis (CHD) patients were included in the survey. Twenty interviews were conducted with NHHD, CHD, and predialysis patients. RESULTS: Compared with CHD patients, NHHD patients had higher perceived physical health scores (Short Form 12 [SF-12]: 41.47 +/- 10.9 versus 34.73 +/- 10.6, P < 0.0001), but had similar mental health scores (47.30 +/- 11.1[NHHD] versus 45.27 +/- 11.3[CHD]), P = 0.25). Despite having similar measures of education and perceived social support as NHHD patients, CHD patients had a low interest (1.68 [out of 5] +/- 1.26) in adopting NHHD. The major barriers perceived by CHD patients were lack of self-efficacy in performing the therapy, lack of confidence in self-cannulation, and length of time on current therapy. Similar themes emerged from the qualitative analysis as well as: burden on family members and fear of a catastrophic event. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-perceived barriers are primarily fears of self-cannulation, a catastrophic event, and the burden on family. These findings should form the basis of screening patients for interest in NHHD and serve to mitigate these concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".