A Qualitative Pilot Study of the Perceptions in Older Adults with End-Stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the perceptions of older adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on chronic hemodialysis (HD) even though this could potentially influence how treatment is received. This study explores the perceptions of older adults with ESKD on HD, specifically their decision to initiate HD, preconceptions and expectations of HD, perceived difficulties with HD, and coping strategies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Outpatient chronic dialysis units. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with ESKD on HD. INTERVENTION: Open-ended interviews were conducted with 15 participants. Inclusion criteria were age 60 years and older, HD duration of at least three months, and ability to consent and participate in the interview process. RESULTS: We report on four identified domains: decision to initiate HD; preconceptions and expectations of HD; drawback of HD; and coping strategies. All participants were reluctant to initiate HD, but made the decision on advice from their physicians for varying reasons. Trust in physicians' opinions also played a role for some. Some participants had positive preconceptions of HD, while a few had negative preconceptions or unrealistic expectations. Even though the majority of participants identified several difficulties with being on HD, they also had positive coping strategies, and the majority indicated that they would make the same decision to initiate HD. CONCLUSION: As clinicians are turning more to patient-centered medicine, understanding patients' perceptions of HD is of crucial importance. Our study highlights the importance of improving pre-hemodialysis education to ensure that patients' expectations are realistic, as well as identifying individualized coping strategies by patients.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".