Primary care physicians’ perceived barriers, facilitators and strategies to enhance conservative care for older adults with chronic kidney disease: a qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although primary care physicians (PCPs) are often responsible for the routine care of older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), there is a paucity of evidence regarding their perspectives and practice of conservative (non-dialysis) care. We undertook a qualitative study to describe barriers, facilitators and strategies to enhance conservative, non-dialysis, CKD care by PCPs in the community. METHODS: , not on dialysis) in the prior year. Participant recruitment ceased when data saturation was reached. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 27 PCPs were interviewed. The majority were male (15/27), were aged 40-60 years (15/27) and had practiced in primary care for >20 years (14/27). Perceived barriers to conservative CKD care included: managing expectations of kidney failure for patients and their families; dealing with the complexity of medical management of patients requiring conservative care; and challenges associated with managing patients jointly with specialists. Factors that facilitated conservative CKD care included: establishing patient/family expectations early; preserving continuity of care; and utilizing a multidisciplinary team approach. Suggested strategies for improving conservative care included having: direct telephone access to clinicians familiar with conservative care; treatment decision aids for patients and their families; and a conservative care clinical pathway to guide management. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs identified important barriers and facilitators to conservative care for their older patients with Stage 5 CKD. Further investigation of potential strategies that address barriers and enable facilitators is required to improve the quality of conservative care for older adults in the community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".