Supporting Patient-Centered Pregnancy Counseling in Nephrology Care: A Semistructured Interview Study of Patients and Nephrologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundIndividuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and are susceptible to disempowerment and decisional burden when receiving reproductive counseling and considering pregnancy. Nephrologists do not commonly counsel about reproductive health, and no tools exist to support patient-centered reproductive counseling for those with CKD.MethodsThirty patients aged 18-45 with CKD stages 1-5 who were assigned female sex at birth and 12 nephrologists from a single academic medical center participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. They were asked about information needs, decision-support needs, as well as facilitators and barriers to reproductive health care and counseling. Thematic analysis was performed.ResultsFour main themes were identified: 1) assessing reproductive intentions; 2) information about reproductive health and kidney disease; 3) reproductive risk; and 4) communication and decision-making needs. Patients’ reproductive intentions varied over time and shaped the content of information needed from nephrologists. Patients and nephrologists both felt risk communication could be improved but focused on different aspects to improve the quality of this counseling; nephrologists focused on providing individualized risk estimates and patients focused on balancing risks with benefits and management. Patients desired nephrologists to bring up the topic of reproductive health and counseling in kidney clinic, and this is not commonly or systematically done currently.ConclusionsThis work highlights a critical need for more dialog about reproductive health in kidney care, identified differences in what patients and nephrologists think is important in communication and decision-making, and provides an important step in developing patient-centered reproductive counseling tools in nephrology. Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and are susceptible to disempowerment and decisional burden when receiving reproductive counseling and considering pregnancy. Nephrologists do not commonly counsel about reproductive health, and no tools exist to support patient-centered reproductive counseling for those with CKD. Thirty patients aged 18-45 with CKD stages 1-5 who were assigned female sex at birth and 12 nephrologists from a single academic medical center participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. They were asked about information needs, decision-support needs, as well as facilitators and barriers to reproductive health care and counseling. Thematic analysis was performed. Four main themes were identified: 1) assessing reproductive intentions; 2) information about reproductive health and kidney disease; 3) reproductive risk; and 4) communication and decision-making needs. Patients’ reproductive intentions varied over time and shaped the content of information needed from nephrologists. Patients and nephrologists both felt risk communication could be improved but focused on different aspects to improve the quality of this counseling; nephrologists focused on providing individualized risk estimates and patients focused on balancing risks with benefits and management. Patients desired nephrologists to bring up the topic of reproductive health and counseling in kidney clinic, and this is not commonly or systematically done currently. This work highlights a critical need for more dialog about reproductive health in kidney care, identified differences in what patients and nephrologists think is important in communication and decision-making, and provides an important step in developing patient-centered reproductive counseling tools in nephrology.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".