Results From a Physical Activity Intervention Feasibility Study With Kidney Inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with end-stage kidney disease requiring dialysis are often physically inactive, resulting in reduced physical functioning, increased frailty, and reduced quality of life. Furthermore, extended hospital stays and frequent readmissions are common, exacerbating health care costs. Physical activity may improve physical functioning, disability, and frailty but is not part of standard care of patients requiring dialysis. Research is required to determine the feasibility of implementing physical function assessments and physical activity programs in kidney inpatients requiring dialysis. OBJECTIVE: feasibility criteria, and that kidney inpatients would benefit from participating. DESIGN: Pilot study. SETTING: Patient Unit 37, Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, AB, Canada. PATIENTS: Kidney in-patients receiving dialysis. MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility data were collected for recruitment, participation, assessment completion, physical activity completion, and adverse events. Participant and healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction with the intervention was assessed using a questionnaire. Frailty and physical function were assessed by the kinesiologist at baseline and postintervention prior to hospital discharge. METHODS: The study was a single-arm pilot intervention examining feasibility and preliminary efficacy. Kidney inpatients requiring dialysis were recruited to an individualized in-hospital physical activity intervention for the duration of their hospital stay. The intervention was led by a kinesiologist and supported by the clinical care team, including physiotherapists and nurse clinicians. Individualized exercise programs were created for patients to perform daily during their stay. These programs focused on strength, mobility, balance, and general movement and were tailored to each patient's needs. RESULTS: level for completion of assessments pre and postintervention was 50%. Ninety-five percent (n = 22/23) of preintervention assessments were completed compared to 65% of postintervention assessments. All participants who completed the survey (100%, n = 14/14) and most of the staff (77%, n = 24/31) reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the program. There were no adverse events related to the intervention. On average, Move More patients demonstrated improvements in frailty status and specific subsets of quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Firstly, as a feasibility study, the research was not powered to address the effectiveness of the intervention and lacked a comparison group to definitively link observed changes to the intervention itself. The voluntary nature of recruitment may have been biased toward ESKD inpatients with above-average motivation and baseline function. Furthermore, the small sample size from a single site limits the generalizability of findings. An additional limitation was the fact that postassessments were missed on a large number of patients, due to them being discharged prior to research staff knowing and being able to complete the assessments. Finally, studying the length of stay across the institution, as opposed to just the individual ward, would provide insight into hospitalization impact for these patients. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of and participation in a physical activity intervention for kidney inpatients requiring dialysis was initially not feasible primarily due to low recruitment and adherence challenges. The study was modified by including a research team member on the unit to increase recruitment efforts and support exercise adherence. The intervention impact includes potentially benefits on frailty and quality of life.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".