MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399322432 · doi:10.1093/ckj/sfae162

Dialysis nurse demand in Europe: an estimated prediction based on modelling

2024· article· en· W4399322432 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Rostoker, Sibille Tröster, Afra Masià‐Plana, Vicky Ashworth, Kuhan Perampaladas

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Kidney Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
FundersBaxter International
KeywordsDialysisMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: To estimate the projections of supply and demand for dialysis nurses (DNs) over 5 years in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain and the UK). Methods: This study modelled the nursing labour workforce across each jurisdiction by estimating the current nursing labour force, number of nursing graduates and the attrition rate. Results: France currently has the greatest demand for DNs (51 325 patients on dialysis), followed by Italy, the UK and Spain with 40 661, 30 301 and 28 007 patients on dialysis, respectively. The number of in-centre haemodialysis (HD) patients is expected to increase in the four countries, while the number of patients on home HD (HHD) or on peritoneal dialysis (PD) is expected to increase in the UK. Currently Italy has the greatest proportion of DNs (2.6%), followed by France (2.1%), Spain (1.7%) and the UK (1.5%). Estimation of the dialysis nursing staff growth rate over 5 years showed that the UK has the greatest estimated growth rate (6%), followed by Italy (2%), France (2%) and Spain (1%). Conclusions: Dialysis demand will increase in the coming years, which may exacerbate the DN shortage. Additionally, competencies and training requirements of DNs should be precisely defined. Finally, implementing and facilitating PD and HHD strategies would be helpful for patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare systems and can even help ease the DN shortage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Kidney JournalSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207