Physical activity for people with chronic kidney disease: an international survey of nephrologist practice patterns and research priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: People with chronic kidney diseases (CKD) have identified exercise as a research priority. To inform the research agenda, we surveyed nephrologists on their practice patterns, available resources and research priorities for exercise and physical activity (PA) in CKD. DESIGN: Cross-sectional international survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 19-item electronic survey was administered to practising nephrologists with publicly available email addresses in Canada (n=354) and Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) and via newsletters for the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nephrology (n=598). OUTCOMES: Frequency and predictors of exercise and PA counselling in practice and research priorities. RESULTS: 189 respondents (20% response) completed the survey. Eighty-one per cent of ANZ and 42% of Canadian respondents reported that their renal programmes did not have any exercise programmes or resources. The most frequently reported barrier for exercise programme implementation was a lack of funding (77%). Ninety per cent of respondents thought regular exercise provides 'health benefits' for all CKD stages; 59% reported that exercise counselling was within the nephrologists' scope of practice and 47% reported 'frequently' or 'always' counselling patients. In multivariable analysis, female gender (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.16 to 4.58) and older age (OR 1.94 per age category increase; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.26) were associated with exercise counselling. Out of 194 research priorities, 65 (34%) were clinical outcomes (cardiovascular parameters) and 30% were patient-reported outcomes (quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: Most nephrologists consider exercise and PA counselling as within their scope of practice and beneficial but, due to competing priorities, do not regularly counsel patients. This suggests a need for the evaluation of effective and efficient counselling strategies and a role for the routine involvement of exercise specialists in kidney care. Cardiovascular parameters and quality of life were identified as important outcomes for future exercise trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".