Through the Lens of Chronic Kidney Disease: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Young Women Living With CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young women may be particularly vulnerable to the negative psychosocial consequences of living with chronic kidney disease (CKD). To date, little is known about how women themselves experience and manage their illness. OBJECTIVES: This study explored the experiences of young women living with CKD. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Nephrology program in an urban setting in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Women with category G1-3 glomerular-based CKD between 18 and 40 years of age. METHODS: Focus group discussions guided by semi-structured interview questions. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze interview transcripts. RESULTS: . Life decisions significant to women like pursuing a career or motherhood were often colored by CKD, particularly by illness-related challenges, such as unsatisfactory health care support and the physical implications of chronic illness. The women used a variety of strategies including seeking information and relying on supportive people to mitigate these challenges. Although these strategies sometimes enabled them to balance the demands of illness with other life priorities, the lack of resources directed toward their unique needs as young women with CKD often caused them difficulties in managing their illness. LIMITATIONS: Participants were from one nephrology program in an urban setting and were well educated overall. Their experiences may not be reflective of young women in other settings or from diverse backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS: The women's emotional well-being and life choices were considerably influenced by CKD. Although the women were often able to manage challenges associated with CKD, they acknowledged the need to seek additional professional resources to complement their own self-identified strategies. As the women sought out these supports, they identified gaps in resources specific to women with CKD. This article summarizes recommendations from their perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable as this was a qualitative study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".