The value of patient and provider reported experiences in evaluating home-based assisted peritoneal dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale, aims and objectives: Assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a proven intervention to support patients with functional limitations in performing home-based PD. Previous research has focused on clinical outcomes, but experiences with assisted PD have not been explored from the perspective of patients and providers. Through a 12-month pilot program called PD Assist (PDA), this study elicited these perspectives to improve the program. Methods: A 12-month pilot of PDA delivered by a contracted health service provider delivered across multiple PD units in British Columbia, Canada, was evaluated. A multi-source evaluation model was used, including the semi-structured qualitative feedback in this report. Patients and their families, PD staff and caregiver stakeholders involved in the PDA pilot project, participated in the feedback process. Qualitative feedback was codified and analyzed via a thematic approach to identify values, enablers, barriers and suggestions for PDA program improvement from the perspective of patients andproviders involved in PDA.Results: All stakeholder groups advocated for continuation of PDA services. Key reported values were patient independence, enhanced psychosocial support and relief of treatment-associated burden. Consistency and communication between involved parties were reported as enablers of success, while scheduling conflicts, geographic challenges and staffing inconsistency were viewed as barriers. Areas for program improvement included the need for more personalized services. Conclusions: Semi-structured qualitative feedback provided meaningful insights into the experiences of PDA among patients and providers that were an instrumental part of a successful pilot project and identified opportunities for further program improvement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".