“You know your own fistula, it becomes a part of you”—Patient perspectives on vascular access: A semistructured interview study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of hemodialysis depends on functional vascular access but such an invasive, semipermanent intervention can be confronting for patients. Vascular access complications are potentially life threatening and reduce treatment satisfaction and quality of life. This study aims to describe patient perspectives on vascular access. Face-to-face, semistructured interviews were conducted with 26 adult patients receiving hemodialysis with any form of vascular access at two dialysis units in Australia. The transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. We identified five major themes describing patient perspectives on vascular access: developing mental fortitude for access (accepting necessity for survival, self-advocacy, experiential confidence and competency, dependency on others, gaining vascular knowledge), device intrusiveness on the body (restricting normal function, finding compensatory solutions, bodily invasion, confronting appearance), inhibiting pain (aversion to surgery, persisting needle anxieties), exposure to dire health consequences (resigning to inevitable failure, anticipating serious complications, technological skepticism, wary of medical incompetence), and imposing burdens (generating additional expenses, encumbering family members). Patients with a vascular access rely on a precarious lifeline, which is confronting, intrusive, and burdensome. Some develop mental resilience to cope with the pain and invasiveness of vascular access. The results suggest that more attention to address needle anxieties, self-advocacy, lifestyle disruption, fear of complications, and concern for caregiver burden may improve treatment satisfaction and outcomes for patients on hemodialysis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".