MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386259035 · doi:10.36367/ntqr.16.2023.e789

“We’re not There yet”: Exploring Contextual Factors Shaping Canadian Dialysis Nurses’ Engagement in Kidney Supportive Care

2023· article· en· W4386259035 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jovina Concepcion Bachynski, Lenora Duhn, Idevânia G. Costa, Pilar Camargo‐Plazas

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Trends in Qualitative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityQueen's University
FundersAmerican Nephrology Nurses Association
KeywordsPsychosocialDialysisNursingMedicineConversationAdvance care planningQualitative researchPsychologyPalliative careSociologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Treatment for kidney failure, such as dialysis, can result in a tremendously high physical and psychosocial symptom burden on patients and their families. Kidney supportive care (KSC), including advance care planning, involves early identification and treatment of symptoms that improve the quality of life for people receiving dialysis. The delay or lack of engagement in KSC by dialysis nurses until the end of life may result in people dying without receiving optimal palliative care services. Purpose and Questions: Our overarching purpose is to develop a theory about the process of engagement in KSC by dialysis nurses, and this paper is about a sub-question: What are the personal, professional, organizational, and environmental factors that shape nurses’ attitudes/beliefs toward and knowledge of supportive care in dialysis? Methods: We followed Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory method. Through initial purposeful and subsequent theoretical sampling, 23 nurses with work experience in outpatient hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis settings from across Canada were recruited to participate in two interviews, each using the Zoom© teleconferencing platform. Concurrent data collection and analysis were undertaken. Results: Findings at the focused coding stage comprise contextual factors impacting such engagement. The core category of Fragmenting Care is explained by four categories of contextual factors and their related concepts and sub-concepts: (1) structural (lack of dedicated time, language barrier, knowledge gap); (2) inter-relational (patient-related factors; nurse-related factors [discomfort with having the conversation, lack of self-confidence, multi-dimensional tensions—them versus us]); (3) cultural-dialysis (biomedical focus, ambiguous responsibility, inopportune conversations); and (4) systemic (lack of conceptual clarity). Implications: These collective factors have not been illuminated previously, and while challenging, they help to better understand and therefore address engagement in KSC by dialysis nurses. Conclusion: Effecting change to normalize KSC is a priority requiring solutions compatible with complex systems.

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)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.770
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Trends in Qualitative ResearchSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207