Living with dying: A narrative inquiry of people with chronic kidney disease and their family members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe how people diagnosed with chronic kidney disease and their family members describe uncertainty related to impending death. BACKGROUND: There has been little research about the experiences of people with chronic kidney disease and their family members as they near the end-of-life. We need to understand these experiences to give holistic person-centred care. DESIGN: A narrative enquiry was undertaken using a social constructionist perspective. METHODS: Data were collected in two in-depth interviews, approximately 3-4 months apart, followed by a telephone follow-up 2-3 months later. RESULTS: Eleven people with advanced chronic kidney disease and nine family members/significant others participated. For both participants in the dyad, a number of key themes/storylines were identified. These included recognition that: @life has a boundary, living on the edge, I'm not afraid to die but… and remembering loss and death experiences@. CONCLUSIONS: This enquiry illuminated four key storylines of about death and dying with advanced chronic kidney disease for people with the illness and their family members. Discussion about past experiences with illness, loss, death, and dying can give an entry for discussion about end-of-life. The person with illness and family members often held very similar perceptions and desires, but healthcare professionals' contributions to understanding of the experience were not mentioned. Implications for clinicians include attending to peoples' awareness of death as a distinct opportunity, listening attentively and posing questions that genuinely invite concerns and wishes about end-of-life and living well.
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) | 0.000 | 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".