Patient screening and assessment for home dialysis therapies: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home dialysis therapies have limited uptake in most regions despite recognized benefits such as increasing patients' independence, and several domains of quality of life with cost savings in some systems. OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping review of published literature to identify tools and guides used in systematically screening and assessing patient suitability for home dialysis. A secondary objective was to explore barriers and enablers associated with the home dialysis assessment process. It is important to identify gaps in current research to pose pertinent questions for future work in the field. DESIGN: Online databases Embase, Medline (Ovid), and CINAHL were used to identify articles published between January 2007 to May 2023. A total of 23 peer-reviewed primary and secondary studies that investigated screening or selection for patients > 18 years old with kidney failure for home dialysis met the study inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The studies consisted of secondary studies (n = 10), observational studies (n = 8), and survey-based studies (n = 5). The major themes identified that influence patient screening and assessment for home dialysis candidacy included: screening tools and guidelines (n = 8), relative contraindications (n = 4), patient or program education (n = 9), and socioeconomic factors (n = 2). LIMITATIONS: Consistent with the scoping review methodology, the methodological quality of included studies was not assessed. The possible omission of evidence in languages other than English is a limitation. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified tools and factors that potentially guide the assessment process for home dialysis candidacy. Patient screening and assessment for home dialysis requires a comprehensive evaluation of clinical, psychosocial, and logistical factors. Further research is required to validate and refine existing tools to establish standardized patient screening criteria and evaluation processes. Up-to-date training and education for healthcare providers and patients are needed to improve the utilization of home dialysis and ensure optimal outcomes.
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 | 0.056 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".