Attitudes of Canadian nephrologists, family physicians and patients with kidney failure toward primary care delivery for chronic dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nephrologists have traditionally assumed responsibility for both nephrological and primary care health problems of their dialysis patients. However, given the increasing limitations of nephrology human resources, there is concern that traditional models may fall short of providing comprehensive care. METHODS: We studied this issue by distributing three different self-administered surveys to 361 members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology, 325 family physicians, and 163 chronic dialysis patients. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 61.3% for nephrologists, 51% for family physicians, and 90% for patients. More than 50% of Canadian nephrologists are spending approximately one-third of their time in primary care delivery. The majority of these nephrologists and family physicians agree that nephrologists should not be solely responsible for the primary care of patients on dialysis. Yet, both groups of physicians have concerns that family physicians do not have the knowledge/training and time to care for this complicated group of patients. The patients themselves have more confidence in the primary care that is delivered by their family physicians than by their nephrologists. Unfortunately, there is little communication between the two physician groups either between themselves or with their patients about the services that should be provided by their nephrologist or their family physician. CONCLUSION: Nephrologists and family physicians agree that more primary care for dialysis patients should be provided by family physicians. However, the lack of communication between physicians and patients may result in either a duplication or omission of services that are required by this patient population. Dialysis delivery systems in Canada must evolve to ensure that comprehensive chronic dialysis and primary care is provided to these patients through cooperation and communication with primary care physicians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".