Exploration of Caregiver Experiences of Conservatively Managed End-Stage Kidney Disease to Inform Development of a Psychosocial Intervention: The ACORN Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is an overwhelming illness that impacts not just patients, but also their informal carers. Patients who opt for conservative management rather than dialysis experience difficult symptoms and the psychosocial consequences of their condition. Informal carers of patients who choose conservative management can also experience high levels of psychosocial burden, yet there is little guidance on how best to support informal carers, and no evidence on psychosocial interventions to address unmet needs. AIM: The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and unmet needs of informal carers of patients with ESKD receiving conservative management in order to inform the development of a psychosocial intervention. METHODS: This qualitative study will consist of three stages: (I) semi-structured interviews with informal carers in England and Northern Ireland, (II) focus groups with healthcare professionals and informal carers, and (III) national workshops to refine the components of a psychosocial intervention. DISCUSSION: Informal carers of patients with ESKD who are receiving conservative management experience a high psychosocial burden, but there is limited evidence on how best to provide support, particularly as the patient nears the end of life. To our knowledge this study will be the first to address this gap by exploring the experiences and unmet needs of informal carers, with the aim of informing the development of a psychosocial intervention to support the health and wellbeing of informal carers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".