Understanding Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease and Their Caregivers’ Self-Management Experiences: A Qualitative Study Using the Theoretical Domains Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Self-management support interventions are widely accepted in chronic kidney disease (CKD) care; however, interventions rarely consider individual behaviors by incorporating a behavioral theoretical framework. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) can be used to facilitate an understanding of patients and their caregivers’ behaviors to successfully self-manage CKD. Objectives: (1) To understand behaviors of patients with CKD and their caregivers and identify potential intervention approaches to support CKD self-management and (2) to explore relationships between the 14 TDF domains and CKD self-management. Design: Qualitative descriptive study using both content and thematic analysis Setting: Purposive criterion was used to recruit participants from across Canada. Patients: Canadian patients with CKD and their caregivers. Measurements: Focus groups and telephone interviews using a semistructured interview guide. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data collected from focus groups and telephone interviews from July 2017 to January 2018. Two research team members coded the transcribed data to the 14 TDF domains using a modified approach of the Framework Method. We linked the common TDF domains to relevant intervention functions from the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify potential intervention approaches. We also identified and mapped relationships between the relevant TDF domains to report emerging themes. Results: Six focus groups (37 participants) and 11 telephone interview transcripts were analyzed. Five TDF domains that influenced CKD self-management behavior were identified: environmental context and resources, knowledge, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, and social influences. Four BCW intervention functions were identified: education, modeling, persuasion, and environmental restructuring. Four emergent themes, shaped by the populated 14 TDF domains, were identified: What does this mean for me? Help me help myself, How does this make me feel? and Who am I? Limitations: The TDF was not used to design the interview guide; therefore, there may be underrepresentation of some TDF domains relevant for self-management. Conclusion: Our findings highlight 5 TDF domains that can influence CKD self-management behavior and 4 possible intervention approaches to influence behavior change in patients with CKD and their caregivers. Emergent themes highlight participants’ interpretation of being diagnosed with CKD, their motivations, feelings, values, and altered identity. This work will inform the codesign of a behavior change intervention to enhance patient self-management of CKD.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".