The effect of a hemodialysis patient education program on fluid control and dietary compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Some hemodialysis patients may experience problems in completing activities of daily living and adhering to diet and fluid restrictions due to a decrease in self-care power and a loss of competence. METHODS: The study was conducted with 78 people assigned to the intervention (N = 38) and control groups (N = 40). Data were collected using the sociodemographic characteristics questionnaire, dialysis diet and fluid nonadherence questionnaire (DDFQ), and fluid control in hemodialysis patients scale (FCHPS). The participants in the intervention group were given the "Nutrition Education Booklet for Dialysis Patients". The participants in the intervention group were trained through four education sessions across 4 months, and the measurement tools were administered to them. The participants in the control group were interviewed twice, once at the onset of the study and once 2 months later and the measurement tools were administered to them. FINDINGS: In the intervention group, a decrease was observed in the pre- and postdialysis interdialytic weight gain, ultrafiltration (UF) volume, and blood pressure values of the patients after the training. There was a statistically significant decrease in the mean scores for the frequency and degree of nonadherence to diet restriction, and for the frequency and degree of nonadherence to fluid restriction in the participants in the intervention group compared to the participants in the control group (P < 0.05). There was a statistically significant increase in the mean scores obtained from the FCHPS and its subscales by the participants in the intervention group compared to the participants in the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The training given to the hemodialysis patients positively contributed to their adherence to diet and fluid restrictions. The patients' adherence to diet and fluid restriction increased.
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".