MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896353397 · doi:10.1177/2054358118803323

Educational Support Around Dialysis Modality Decision Making in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Qualitative Study

2018· article· en· W2896353397 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brendan Cassidy, Lori Harwood, Leah Getchell, Michael A. Smith, Shannon L. Sibbald, Louise Moist

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseGeneral partnershipPopulationQualitative researchPeritoneal dialysisFamily medicineHealth carePatient educationNursingHemodialysisDialysisMedical educationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are asked to choose a renal replacement therapy or conservative management. Education and knowledge transfer play key roles in this decision-making process, yet they remain a partially met need. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the dialysis modality decision-making process through exploration of the predialysis patient experience to better inform the educational process. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Kidney Care Centre of London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Twelve patients with CKD, with 4 patients on in-center hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with each participant, along with any family members who were present. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the transcripts for common themes. Representative quotes were decided via team consensus. A patient collaborator was part of the research team. RESULTS: Three themes influenced dialysis modality decision making: (i) Patient Factors: individualization, autonomy, and emotions; (ii) Educational Factors: tailored education, time and preparation, and available resources; and (iii) Support Systems: partnership with health care team, and family and friends. LIMITATIONS: Sample not representative of wider CKD population. Limited number of eligible patients. Poor recall may affect findings. CONCLUSIONS: Modality decision making is a complex process, influenced by the patient's health literacy, willingness to accept information, predialysis lifestyle, support systems, and values. Patient education requires the flexibility to individualize the delivery of a standardized CKD curriculum in partnership with a patient-health care team, to fulfill the goal of informed, shared decision making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207