Psychometrically validated questionnaires to measure the effects and benefits/barriers to physical exercise in hemodialysis patients: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a critical assessment, summarize, and synthesize the evidence from studies using psychometrically validated questionnaires to assess the effects and benefits/barriers of physical exercise in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: The search was performed on six electronic databases. It was conducted following the PRISMA statement and the PICO framework. The methodological quality was assessed using the MMAT. Were used the quality criteria for psychometric properties developed by Terwee et al. RESULTS: Overall, 70 studies were included, and 39 questionnaires identified, evaluating 13 outcomes. The quality of the psychometric properties of the questionnaires was not always described; only 13 presented positive ratings on > =6/9 properties. The most assessed measure was criterion validity, and the least assessed criteria was responsiveness. The most outcome measured by these questionnaires was quality of life using SF-36, followed by psychological health using the BDI. The DPEBBS was the only instrument identified that assessed the benefits and barriers of exercise. CONCLUSION: Quality of life and depression were the most frequent outcomes. Other measures contemplating physical, mental, cognitive performance, and especially of the perceptions benefits and barriers to exercise should be further investigated. We have clearly identified the need for more studies evaluating psychometric measures that have not been tested satisfactorily or hardly been tested at all.
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 | 0.022 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".