Global Clinician Perceptions on the Priorities for Exercise Programming in People Receiving Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although exercise and physical activity have been shown to improve physical function among people receiving Peritoneal Dialysis (PD), little is known about PD clinicians' perceptions and practices regarding exercise prescription and promotion. Methods: A cross-sectional online questionnaire was developed through expert and patient consensus, and distributed to PD clinicians from 100 PD prevalent countries between July and December 2021 through social media and professional nephrology societies. As part of this survey, participants were asked the question “What are the most important aspects you would like to see incorporated in an exercise program for PD patients?” Responses were coded using Summative Content Analysis and grouped into themes by two analysts. Results: 610 respondents (74% females; 37% nephrologists, 49% nurses, and 14% allied health professionals; 0.7% were from Africa, 25% Asia, 16.6% Australia/New Zealand, 22.1% Europe, 10% South America, 1.8% Middle East, 24% North America) provided 1076 unique perspectives that were included in the analysis. The overarching theme identified was the need for individualized and accessible programming. Under this umbrella, the four main themes identified were: promotion of specific exercise activities, overcoming common barriers to exercise for patients and PD programs, perceived cornerstones of exercise prescribing, and program design to address important outcomes for patients. Conclusions: Overall, PD clinicians believe that PD does not preclude exercise participation and recognize the benefits for improving physical, mental, and social well-being. The involvement of exercise professionals is valued in clinical programs, however additional education for practitioners and patients regarding safety and the benefits of exercise is required.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".