MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396991359 · doi:10.1681/asn.20213210s1847c

A Qualitative Exploration of Patient-Provider Communication Challenges After a Kidney Transplant

2021· article· en· W4396991359 on OpenAlexaff
Melika Dastgheib, Renad F. Aser, Pearse O'Malley, N. Al Kaabi, Mahdiba Chowdhury, Rabail Siddiqui, Tibyan Ahmed, Heather Ford, Beth Edwards, Istvan Mucsi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKidney transplantQualitative researchMedicineRenal transplantKidney transplantationKidneyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Kidney transplantation is a life-altering treatment, but symptoms and drug side effects persist for many patients post-transplant. Effective communication with the healthcare team (HCT) is key to address these, yet research shows patients find that challenging. Ineffective communication may lead to inadequate assessment and management of symptoms. Although communication is among patients' top research priorities, less than 5% of articles in the two leading transplant journals address it. To fill this gap, we conducted a qualitative exploration of communication challenges from recipients' perspective. Methods: Within a larger study, we used Qualitative Description methodology to understand the quality of communication between patients and HCT post-transplant. Purposive recruitment was done via flyers (Jun-Dec2020). Patients with significant cognitive impairment or insufficient English were excluded. In-depth, semi-structured, individual interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Directed content analysis framed the iterative development of codes. Results: 7 recipients (4 males, ages 51-75, 4-15.5 years post-transplant) and 1 caregiver participated. Findings indicate a range of experiences, from regular contact with HCT to little perceived opportunity to communicate in-between clinic visits. Compared to pre-transplant care, communication was less frequent and many patients felt isolated, making it difficult for them to know where and how to seek information and support. Instead, patients relied on searching for information online, visiting family doctors or the emergency room. Some used phone/voicemail to reach HCT, but these were not always timely or efficient. Patients also raised the need for HCT to consider the uniqueness of each patient and their broader context, in addition to quantitative measures, in assessing their health. The diverse communication experiences also relate to patients' comfort with self-advocacy. While some proactively initiate conversation, others are more reserved. Conclusions: Communication challenges between kidney transplant recipients and HCT contribute to feelings of isolation and difficulties navigating post-transplant life. Tailoring communication to individual preferences may improve patient-centered care.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→