Polypharmacy and Quality of Life Among Dialysis Patients: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Almost all patients who receive dialysis experience polypharmacy, but little is known about their experiences with medication or perceptions toward it. In this qualitative study, we aimed to gain insight into dialysis patients' experiences with polypharmacy, the ways they integrate their medication into their daily lives, and the ways it affects their quality of life. Study Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Setting & Participants: Patients who received dialysis from 2 Dutch university hospitals. Analytical Approach: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed independently by 2 researchers through thematic content analysis. Results: Overall, 28 individuals were interviewed (29% women, mean age 63 ± 16 years, median dialysis vintage 25.5 [interquartile range, 15-48] months, mean daily number of medications 10 ± 3). Important themes were as follows: (1) their own definition of what constitutes "medication," (2) their perception of medication, (3) medication routines and their impact on daily (quality of) life, and (4) interactions with health care professionals and others regarding medication. Participants generally perceived medication as burdensome but less so than dialysis. Medication was accepted as an essential precondition for their health, although participants did not always notice these health benefits directly. Medication routines and other coping mechanisms helped participants reduce the perceived negative effects of medication. In fact, medication increased freedom for some participants. Participants generally had constructive relationships with their physicians when discussing their medication. Limitations: Results are context dependent and might therefore not apply directly to other contexts. Conclusions: Polypharmacy negatively affected dialysis patients' quality of life, but these effects were overshadowed by the burden of dialysis. The patients' realization that medication is important to their health and effective coping strategies mitigated the negative impact of polypharmacy on their quality of life. Physicians and patients should work together continuously to evaluate the impact of treatments on health and other aspects of patients' daily lives. Plain-Language Summary: People receiving dialysis treatment are prescribed a large number of medications (polypharmacy). Polypharmacy is associated with a number of issues, including a lower health-related quality of life. In this study we interviewed patients who received dialysis treatment to understand how they experience polypharmacy in the context of their daily lives. Participants generally perceived medication as burdensome but less so than dialysis and accepted medication as an essential precondition for their health. Medication routines and other coping mechanisms helped participants mitigate the perceived negative effects of medication. In fact, medication led to increased freedom for some participants. Participants had generally constructive relationships with their physicians when discussing their medication but felt that physicians sometimes do not understand them.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".