MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating Acceptability Domain Of An Intradialytic Exercise Program-Patient Adherence And Nursing Documentation

2020· article· en· W3040929288 on OpenAlexaffabout
Iwona Gabrys, Stephanie Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta HealthAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisAuditDocumentationPhysical therapyMedical recordDialysisKidney diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For patients with end stage renal disease, exercise during hemodialysis (HD), intradialytic exercise (IDE), may mitigate treatment related symptoms including cramping, restless legs, and fatigue. In Alberta Kidney Care North, IDE is supervised by a clinical exercise physiologist (CEP) and dialysis unit staff assist with program delivery. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine program responsiveness to the patients' needs (acceptability) by evaluating documentation of patient adherence. METHODS: 1,752 exercise sessions were audited at 6 hemodialysis units. Patient reported participation was collected directly from patients within 10 days of the audit. Baseline and subsequent physical reassessments were examined to verify the validity of patient recall, relative to the required exercise dose. Data points were divided into 2 categories: active IDE participants(A-IDE) and non-active IDE(NA-IDE) participants. A-IDE were defined as patients who completed at least 1 IDE session/week for 4 weeks. NA-IDE participants were defined as those previously assessed and programmed but recently discharged, on a medical hold, or participating in a home exercise program at the time of the audit. RESULTS: Of the 1,332 A-IDE sessions audited, nurses documented patient participation 28.08%, no participation 49.4%, and did not document 22.52%. Patients reported adherence 63.74%. Physical reassessment data showed improved outcome measures thereby, validating patient recall of adherence. Of 420 NA-IDE HD data sheet analyzed, nurses documented patient participation 1.9%, no participation 70.24%, and did not document 27.85%. Patient report and documentation agreed 2.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of IDE participation is an integral component to the evaluation of an IDE program. Discrepancies between patient report and documented adherence exist. We found that patient report is valid, based on improved measures at reassessments; however, we must establish feasible methods for dialysis staff to collect adherence when CEPs are not present. Staff training, including regular surveys to assess staff knowledge of processes, may provide valuable information on units with a high staff turnover. Implementing an IDE prescription confirmation, as a standard practice in HD treatment preparation, may affirm participation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→