MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4211148153 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051475

A pilot randomised controlled trial of an energy management programme for adults on maintenance haemodialysis: the fatigue-HD study

2022· article· en· W4211148153 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janine Farragher, Pietro Ravani, Braden Manns, Meghan J. Elliott, Chandra Thomas, Maoliosa Donald, Nancy Verdin

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialBlindingQuality of life (healthcare)NursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Identifying interventions to reduce fatigue and improve life participation are top research priorities of people on maintenance haemodialysis. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to explore the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of an energy management programme for people on maintenance haemodialysis. DESIGN: Parallel-arm, 1:1, blinded, pilot randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited from 6 dialysis units in Calgary, Canada. Eligible patients were on maintenance haemodialysis, clinically stable and reported disabling fatigue on the Fatigue Severity Scale items 5, 7, 8 and 9. RANDOMISATION: Participants were randomised using a computer-generated random number sequence according to permuted blocked randomisation, stratified by dialysis unit. BLINDING: Participants were blinded to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received an attention control (general disease self-management education) or the Personal Energy Planning (PEP) programme, a tailored, web-supported 7-9 weeks energy management programme. OUTCOMES: Eligibility, recruitment and attrition rates were recorded, and standardised intervention effects (Hedge's G) were calculated for fatigue and life participation questionnaires at one1-week postintervention and 12-week postintervention. RESULTS: 159 of 253 screened patients were eligible to be approached. 42 (26%) had fatigue, were interested and consented to participate, of whom 30 met eligibility criteria and were randomised (mean age 62.4 years (±14.7), 60% male). 22 enrolled participants (73%) completed all study procedures. Medium-sized intervention effects were observed on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)-Performance Scale, Global Life Participation Scale and Global Life Participation Satisfaction Scale at 1-week postintervention follow-up, compared with control. At 12-week follow-up, large and very large intervention effects were observed on the COPM-Performance Scale and COPM-Satisfaction Scale, respectively. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to enrol and follow patients on haemodialysis in a randomised controlled trial of an energy management intervention. As the intervention was associated with improved life participation on some measures, a larger trial is justified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→