Knowledge of and attitudes towards palliative care and hospice services among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Palliative care is greatly underutilised for patients dying from advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study explored CKD patients' knowledge of, and attitudes to, palliative and hospice care. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: This was a cross-sectional interview-based survey of stage 5 CKD patients. SETTING: Both dialysis patients and those managed without dialysis were assessed in a university-based renal programme in Alberta, Canada. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was validated patient knowledge of, and attitudes, towards palliative and hospice care. Secondary analyses of associations between knowledge and potential explanatory variables such as patient demographics, living circumstances, self-assigned ethnicity, socioeconomic position and sources of knowledge were explored. RESULTS: Only 22.2% and 17.9% of 436 patients surveyed possessed a correct understanding of palliative and hospice care, respectively, and perceptions were mostly negative. Sources of knowledge of these services rarely involved healthcare professionals (3.1%-7.7%). Multivariable analysis identified that white participants were more than 12 times more likely to have accurate knowledge than non-Caucasian patients, not accounted for by socioeconomic position. Accurate knowledge was also more likely among patients who had personal experience with palliative care, or obtained their knowledge firsthand from family and friends. After palliative and hospice care were described, the vast majority of patients felt these services were valuable and should be offered to patients with advanced CKD (87.8% and 89.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Based on study findings, CKD patient and family education about the benefits of palliative and hospice services is likely important in optimal use of these services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".