Symptoms among patients receiving in‐center hemodialysis: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Assessment of dialysis-related symptoms is not currently a requirement for hemodialysis (HD) providers in the United States. The purpose of this study was to describe patients' perspectives on symptoms associated with end-stage chronic kidney disease treated with thrice-weekly, in-center HD. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study using interpretive description. Interview questions were based on a KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) controversies conference and a literature review. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed for characterizations of symptoms. FINDINGS: Fifty participants (48% female; 42% Hispanic; 30% American Indian; 14% Black; 12% non-Hispanic White) were recruited from six outpatient dialysis centers (four urban, two rural) in the southwestern United States. Median HD duration was 4 years. Of 13 symptoms assessed, nearly all participants reported difficulties with muscle cramping, fatigue, or both. Negotiating fluid removal with dialysis personnel helped to manage cramping. Some participants tried to adjust dialysis days and shift to mitigate fatigue. Most participants reported having experienced depression early in the course of dialysis; for some, it was a persistent or recurrent problem. Relatively few participants reported using antidepressants or counseling to cope with depression. Itching was highly distressing for those who experienced it frequently. Topical treatments, antihistamines, dietary modifications, and phosphate binders were identified as potentially helpful by some participants. DISCUSSION: The major symptoms attributed to HD treatment by participants were cramping, fatigue, depression, and itching. Greater attention by health care providers to the most common and bothersome symptoms could positively impact daily life for HD 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".