International Survey of Peritoneal Dialysis Training Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey nurses around the world about current practices for peritoneal dialysis (PD) home training programs. DESIGN: Random sampling of nurses to complete a written survey from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis Nursing Liaison Committee. SETTINGS: United States, Canada, South America (Brazil, Columbia), The Netherlands, Hong Kong. METHODS: Surveys and responses were sent by fax whenever possible, or by regular mail, or hand carried, or conducted by telephone. Results were stratified by geographic areas as well as by cumulative responses and were expressed as medians with ranges. Kruskal-Wallis was used to evaluate differences in responses. Associations between variables were tested with Pearson correlation. Univariate regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of variables on peritonitis rates. Variables with p < 0.10 were included in a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 317 nurses responded: 88 in the United States, 46 in Canada, 58 in South America, 58 in Hong Kong, and 67 in The Netherlands. This represented 37% of all surveys distributed. Respondents had a median of 12 years' experience in nephrology (range 1-35 years), but only 31% had a formal background in adult education. Nearly half received their guidance to patient training from a nurse colleague, 11% were guided by a corporate colleague, and 8% were simply self-taught. Clinics responding had a median of 30 PD patients (range 1-400) and reported they trained a median of 8 patients per year (range 0-86). Reported peritonitis rates were a median 0.46 per year or 1 episode every 26 months. Peritonitis rates, however, were not known by 53% of respondents. Total training time per patient had a very wide range of hours, from 6 to 96. There was no correlation between training time and peritonitis rates among the study respondents (p = 0.38), nor with any other variables. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in practices for PD patient training programs within countries and around the world. Training time did not appear to be related to peritonitis rates. Randomized trials of training practices are needed to determine which approaches produce the best outcomes for patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".