Hemodialysis Patients' Satisfaction and Perspectives on Complications associated with Vascular Access Related Interventions: Are We Listening?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the patient's perspective on complications associated with vascular access-related interventions. METHODS: A multi-stage comprehensive questionnaire of over 150 items was administered to 140 in-center hemodialysis patients in a large, Toronto-based academic-based facility from May 1, 2011 until July 1, 2014. The questionnaire was divided into three domains: physical complications, disruption to routine, and infection. For each of the 12 prespecified vascular access interventions, there were 9 items about the associated complications. The level of bother associated with complications was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The mean Likert value (5 = extremely bothered) for the physical complications domain was highest for grafts at 1.92, followed closely by fistulas at 1.87, and catheters at 1.56. The mean Likert value for the "disruption of routine" domain was highest for catheters at 1.44, followed by grafts at 1.37, and fistulas at 1.33. For infectious complications of all vascular access-related interventions the mean Likert value was highest at 1.76 for catheters as compared to fistulas at 1.23 and grafts at 1.22. CONCLUSIONS: For hemodialysis patients, the physical complications associated with needle cannulation of fistulas and grafts are a major source of dissatisfaction, while infectious complications, including catheter-related infections, are not a significant source of their concerns. Future research should focus on developing methods to effectively: (i) reduce the fear and pain associated with cannulation and (ii) educate patients about the risks associated with vascular access-related infection.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it