Training clinicians in a problem‐solving fatigue programme for patients receiving maintenance haemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personal Energy Planning is a problem-solving based programme that guides people receiving maintenance haemodialysis treatment to use energy management strategies to address life participation challenges. The feasibility of training dialysis clinicians to become Personal Energy Planning coaches (i.e., programme administrators) is currently unknown. OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of training dialysis clinicians to administer the Personal Energy Planning programme. DESIGN: Feasibility study involving an adherence evaluation of two trained dialysis clinician coaches' problem-solving facilitation skills, and one qualitative interview with each coach. PARTICIPANTS: Two Personal Energy Planning coaches with nursing backgrounds who administered the programme to 10 patients receiving maintenance haemodialysis treatment over a total of 34 sessions. APPROACH: Audio recordings of one session per treatment recipient (n = 10) were evaluated using an established treatment adherence checklist. The proportion of treatment sessions where the item was observed by two adherence raters was calculated. In addition, coaches were interviewed about their experiences learning and administering the programme; interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Some core facilitation skills (e.g., patient-centred goal setting and analysis of performance breakdowns) were consistently used; however, other facilitation skills (e.g., guided discovery and global problem-solving strategy) were not regularly implemented. The coaches discussed challenges (e.g., supporting patient problem-solving and fluctuating patient health) with administering the intervention. Certain training resources (e.g., coaching handbook and expert consultation) were identified as valuable to their learning. CONCLUSIONS: With modifications to training materials, it might be feasible to train dialysis clinicians to administer Personal Energy Planning with people receiving maintenance haemodialysis treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".