Assessing the knowledge of caregivers of children undergoing peritoneal dialysis in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Children with end stage renal disease (ESRD) are commonly placed onto chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) while awaiting a transplant. Those children require a caregiver to assume major responsibility for their treatment. Knowledge of those caregivers is very important to prevent complications. This study aimed to assess the knowledge of caregivers of children undergoing PD in Riyadh.Methods: A convenient sample of 41 caregivers of children on PD from three hospitals in Riyadh and who met the inclusion criteria participated in this study. Structured questions were developed by the researchers and used to collect data regarding the study that consisted of two parts. The first part included sociodemographic data of children and the caregivers. The second part contained 36 questions that assessed the knowledge of the caregivers.Results: The majority of caregivers were mothers who were not working. All caregivers were educated, and most were from the central region of Riyadh. It was found that the caregivers had more knowledge than expected, the source of this knowledge was from physicians. There was a high correlation between the knowledge and education level of caregivers. Moreover, there was a significantly statistical correlation between correct answer and sociodemographic data of caregivers’ water supply, type of services and distance between home and the nephrology center.Conclusions and recommendations: Most caregivers have adequate knowledge regarding the care of children with ESRD; however, some weaknesses were identified. The caregivers do not know the symptoms of the disease and they are unable to identify signs of dehydration and the importance of weight to prevent dialysis complications. One third of the sample did not know about the complications of PD. We recommend frequent sessions of PD management and care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".