Views of Canadian Patients on or Nearing Dialysis and Their Caregivers: A Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life of patients receiving dialysis has been rated as poor. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the views of Canadian patients on or nearing dialysis, and those who care for them. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a survey, distributed through dialysis centres, social media and the Kidney Foundation of Canada. SETTING: Pan-Canadian convenience sample. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, their caregivers and health-care providers. MEASUREMENTS: Text responses to open-ended questions on topics relevant to end-stage renal disease. METHODS: Statements related to needs, beliefs or feelings were identified, and were analysed by thematic content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 544 relevant statements from 189 respondents were included for the thematic content analysis. Four descriptive themes were identified through the content analysis: gaining knowledge, maintaining quality of life, sustaining psychosocial wellbeing and ensuring appropriate care. Respondents primarily identified a need for more information, better communication, increased psychosocial and financial support for patients and their families and a strong desire to maintain their previous lifestyle. LIMITATIONS: Convenience sample; questions were originally asked with a different intent (to identify patient-important research issues). CONCLUSIONS: Patients on or nearing dialysis and their caregivers identified four major themes, gaining knowledge, maintaining quality of life, sustaining psychosocial wellbeing and ensuring appropriate care, several of which could be addressed by the health care system without requiring significant resources. These include the development of patient materials and resources, or sharing of existing resources across Canadian renal programs, along with adopting better communication strategies. Other concerns, such as the need for increased psychosocial and financial support, require consideration by health care funders.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".