Exercise perceptions and practices of people receiving peritoneal dialysis: An international cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low physical activity and functional impairment are prevalent and unaddressed in people receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Exercise has been shown to improve physical function and mental health for people with kidney disease. METHODS: Cross-sectional descriptive survey aimed at identifying the exercise and physical activity perceptions and practice patterns of people receiving PD. The survey was developed and pretested with persons living with kidney disease, PD clinicians and exercise specialists. RESULTS: There were 108 respondents (people receiving PD) with the majority from Canada (68%) and the United Kingdom (25%). Seventy-one per cent were engaged in physical activity two or more times per week. Most (91.8%) believed that physical activity is beneficial, and 61.7% reported healthcare provider discussion about physical activity. Perceptions regarding weightlifting restrictions varied: 76% were told not to lift weight with a maximum amount ranging from 2 kg to 45 kg. Few (28%) were instructed to drain PD fluid prior to physical activity. Mixed advice regarding swimming ability was common (44% were told they could swim and 44% were told they should not). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge gaps suggest that education for both healthcare providers and patients is needed regarding the practice of exercise for people living with PD. Common areas of confusion include the maximum weight a person should lift, whether exercise was safe with or without intrabdominal PD fluid in situ and whether swimming is allowed. Further research is needed to provide patients with evidence-based recommendations rather than defaulting to restricting activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".