An eHealth self-management intervention for adults with chronic kidney disease, My Kidneys My Health: a mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited research of electronic tools for self-management for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We sought to evaluate participant engagement, perceived self-efficacy and website usage in a preliminary evaluation of My Kidneys My Health, a patient-facing eHealth tool in Canada. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study of adults with CKD who were not on kidney replacement therapy and who had access to My Kidneys My Health for 8 weeks. Outcomes included acceptance (measured by the Technology Acceptance Model), self-efficacy (measured by the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale [CDSES]) and website usage patterns (captured using Google Analytics). We analyzed participant interviews using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants with CKD completed baseline questionnaires, of whom 22 completed end-of-study questionnaires; data saturation was achieved with 15 telephone interviews. Acceptance was high, with more than 70% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing that the website was easy to use and useful. Of the 22 who completed end-of-study questionnaires, 18 (82%) indicated they would recommend its use to others and 16 (73%) stated they would use the website in the future. Average scores for website satisfaction and look and feel were 7.7 (standard deviation [SD] 2.0) and 8.2 (SD 2.0) out of 10, respectively. The CDSES indicated that participants gained an increase in CKD information. Interviewed participants reported that the website offered valuable information and interactive tools for patients with early or newly diagnosed CKD, or for those experiencing changes in health status. Popular website pages and interactive features included Food and Diet, What is CKD, My Question List and the Depression Screener. INTERPRETATION: Participants indicated that the My Kidneys My Health website provided accessible content and tools that may improve self-efficacy and support in CKD self-management. Further evaluation of the website's effectiveness in supporting self-management among a larger, more heterogenous population is warranted.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".