Quality of Life in Caregivers of Patients Randomized to Standard- Versus Extended-Hours Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Caregivers are essential for the health, safety, and independence of many patients and incur financial and personal cost in this role, including increased burden and lower quality of life (QOL) compared to the general population. Extended-hours hemodialysis may be the preference of some patients, but little is known about its effects on caregivers. Methods Forty caregivers of participants of the ACTIVE Dialysis trial, who were randomized to 12 months extended (median 24 hours/wk) or standard (12 hours/wk) hemodialysis, were included. Utility-based QOL was measured by EuroQOL–5 Dimension–3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) and Short Form–6 Dimensions (SF-6D) and health-related QOL (HRQOL) was measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) and the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) at enrolment and then every 3 months until the end of the study. Results At baseline, utility-based QOL and HRQOL were similar in both groups. At follow-up, caregivers of people randomized to extended-hours dialysis experienced a greater decrease in utility-based QOL measured by EQ-5D-3L compared with caregivers of people randomized to standard hours (–0.18±0.30 vs. –0.02±0.16, P = 0.04). There were no differences between extended- and standard-hours groups in mean change in SF-6D (0.03±0.12 vs. –0.04±0.1, P = 0.8), PCS (–1.2±9.8 vs. –5.6±9.8, P = 0.2), MCS (–4.1±11.2 vs. –0.5±7.1, P = 0.4), and PWI (2.3±17.6 vs. 0.00±20.4, P = 0.9). Conclusion Poorer utility-based QOL, as measured by the EQ-5D-3L, was observed in caregivers of patients receiving extended-hours hemodialysis in this small study. Though the findings are exploratory, the possibility that mode of dialysis delivery negatively impacts on caregivers supports the prioritization of research on burden and impact of service delivery in this population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".