Experiences of People with Kidney Disease Following the Implementation of the Compassionate Mindful Resilience Programme: Qualitative Findings from the COSMIC Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney disease is a progressive, debilitating condition. Patients experience challenging physical and psychological symptoms and are at increased risk of anxiety, depression, and poor mental wellbeing. Access to specialist psychological or social support is limited, with inadequate provision of psychosocial support available across UK renal units. The COSMIC study (examining the acceptability and feasibility of the Compassionate Mindful Resilience programme for adult patients with chronic kidney disease) aimed to support a new service development project, in partnership with Kidney Care UK, by implementing the Compassionate Mindful Resilience (CMR) programme, developed by MindfulnessUK, and explore its feasibility for patients with stage 4 or 5 kidney disease and kidney transplant recipients. This paper reports on the qualitative exploratory work which examined the experiences of study participants, their adherence to practice, and the acceptability of the intervention. METHOD: Participants (n = 19) took part in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Three themes (and nine subthemes) were reported: experiences of the CMR programme that facilitated subjective benefit, participants' lived and shared experiences, and the practicalities of CMR programme participation. All participants reported that they found taking part in the CMR programme to be a beneficial experience. CONCLUSION: The CMR programme was found to be an acceptable intervention for people living with kidney disease and provided tools and techniques that support the mental health and wellbeing of this patient group. Further qualitative exploration into participant experience should be integrated within future trials of this intervention.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".