Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a growth in home-care, and increased funding for dialysis, there is a need for the field of Social Work to understand the life-world of people who experience home haemodialysis technology (HDDT). Given little research has focussed on the lived-experiences of this population (Nagle, 1995), an exploratory qualitative study was employed (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The study investigated the embodied life-world experiences of this population using phenomenological methods (Kvale, 1996; van Manen, 1997). The data was collected and analyzed in terms of the four basic phenomenological categories of lived-time, lived-body, lived-spatiality, lived-relations with others and self (van Manen, 1997). A purposive sample of four was selected, and interviewed using semi-structured interviews, with each participant experiencing various lengths of HHDT. The findings revealed that their life-world had been transformed by their experience of HHDT. In particular, it was documented how participants' adoption of medical practice and discourse has impacted the lived-body, suggesting a need to adopt a plain language or holistic medical discourse practice approach for communication with patients which supports bodily-integrity and sovereignty. Additional findings centered on the incorporation of HHDT into the family unit, and how HHDT may present a health care access barrier to those without homes. Moreover, aspects of the transformation of the home into a hospital were highlighted. Finally, it is suggested that social assessment should consider the patient and family's experience of the dialysis machine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.012 |
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".