Travel arrangements in chronic hemodialysis patients: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT), "travel" and "independence" are rated as 2 of the top 5 factors that inform their choice of treatment modality. While home dialysis modalities offer patients a high degree of independence, the most common RRT in the United States is in-center hemodialysis (IHD). The limits imposed by IHD treatment can present a variety of challenges for patients who wish to travel. This study explored how IHD patients managed their travel and the role of dialysis social workers in executing travel arrangements for patients. METHODS: We performed a qualitative descriptive investigation using semi-structured interviews with adults receiving IHD (n = 16) and renal social workers (n = 8) from Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method. FINDINGS: Three themes emerged from the interviews: travel process, travel-related barriers, and travel-related facilitators. The travel process entailed transient dialysis unit challenges and the need for multiple preparations and precautions. Barriers included comorbidities and not having a relationship with transient dialysis unit staff. Facilitators focused on the importance of travel and staff professionalism at transient dialysis units. Overall, there was lack of uniform protocols to guide the travel process at the patient and the dialysis unit levels. DISCUSSION: This study identified multiple perspectives regarding travel arrangements in chronic IHD patients. There is limited research on travel issues for IHD patients and this investigation is among the first to articulate barriers and facilitators associated with travel from the perspective of patients and social workers. Supporting travel for IHD patients can increase their sense of autonomy and provide opportunities to improve their quality of life.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".