Guidelines for review of patients on haemodialysis: Are we meeting patient needs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to determine satisfaction with dietetic services, identify barriers and enablers to engaging with dietetic services and acceptable methods of delivering nutrition care to patients on haemodialysis. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed based on existing satisfaction surveys and key constructs from the Theoretical Domains Framework to understand patient behaviours around accessing dietetic services. Constructs were grouped according to the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation) of the Behaviour Change Wheel to inform future interventions. Patients at three Brisbane haemodialysis units participated, with questionnaire administered via laptop (by dietetic assistants) or paper-based version (by nurses). RESULTS: Sixty-six patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 40%, 62 ± 14 years, 58% male). Most respondents (n = 63, 95%) reported seeing a dietitian since commencing haemodialysis. A quarter of respondents reported declining or not wanting to see the dietitian. Despite this, questions pertaining to service satisfaction were largely positive. Questions related to enablers and barriers to engaging with the dietitian revealed the domain of motivation as the main barrier with 41% (n = 26) participants not wanting to make dietary changes. The domains of capability and opportunity were not barriers. Patients preferred receiving nutrition information from dietitians, when they had a question or concern, rather than at predefined intervals. Telehealth was not acceptable to the majority of participants. CONCLUSIONS: While patients were satisfied with dietetic care, their preferences for dietetic service delivery were not aligned with current evidence-based guidelines, highlighting need for alternative models of care. Dietetic interventions need to be delivered in a way that addresses motivation.
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".