Feasibility of Intradialytic Cycling Program in a Remote Community Hemodialysis Unit: Mixed-Methods Analysis of Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence demonstrating the benefits of intradialytic cycling. However, there are relatively few centers where this practice has been adopted with no reports from hemodialysis units in rural, remote, and northern locations. Maintaining mobility and quality of life for patients on kidney replacement therapy living in remote northern communities is inhibited by inclement weather and lack of access to resources and infrastructure that support physical activity. The integration of intradialytic cycling during hemodialysis offers patients a form of safe physical activity year-round. OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on better understanding the feasibility and acceptability of implementing intradialytic cycling in a remote northern geographical context. DESIGN: A feasibility study using a mixed-methods explanatory design was adopted for this study. SETTING: The research is conducted in Prince George, British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: The participants are patients attending a community-based dialysis unit in remote northern British Columbia and health professionals working in the same facility. METHODS: Quantitative measures were captured through cycling logbooks and quality of life measure, and qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six (43%) eligible patients used leg ergometers more than once for a median of 2.5 (interquartile range: 1-4) months and 87% of hemodialysis sessions. Participants cycled for a median of 65 (interquartile range: 39-76) minutes per session, with frequent variability noted between participants and different hemodialysis sessions for the same participant. Nine patients completed the European Quality of Life Health Questionnaire prestudy, with 5 (56%) also completing it poststudy. Interviews with 9 patients, 4 nurses, and 1 physiotherapist led to the identification of themes instrumental to implementation: a supportive community dialysis unit, shared responsibility, knowledge of patients/providers, and benefits associated with engagement. Themes that were identified as being key to acceptability in this remote dialysis unit were trust, connection, and engagement through common values. LIMITATIONS: Due to dialysis unit size, we had a small number of participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing best practice in a remote community and provides insight into the elements of context and participation that contribute to acceptability in the implementation of intradialytic cycling.
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 | 0.038 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".