Palliative Care Needs and Symptom Burden in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While life-sustaining, hemodialysis imposes significant physical, emotional, and psychological burdens on patients. The integration of palliative care into the routine management of hemodialysis patients has shown promising benefits. Studies indicate that early palliative care intervention can significantly improve symptom control, enhance quality of life, and reduce hospital admissions and healthcare costs. By addressing the multifaceted needs of hemodialysis patients through palliative care, it is possible to enhance their quality of life significantly. This systematic review aims to synthesize the existing evidence on palliative care needs and symptom burden in hemodialysis patients, highlighting the critical role of palliative care in this vulnerable population. The inclusion criteria encompass studies focusing on adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. A quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to ensure the reliability and validity of findings. Findings highlight significant palliative care needs among hemodialysis patients and emphasize positive perceptions of palliative care interventions among patients underscoring their value while comfort-focused treatment, was prioritized defining the necessity for improved decision-making and access to palliative care services in dialysis settings. Additionally, research identified varied levels of palliative care needs among patients, with a notable proportion experiencing moderate to severe requirements. Furthermore, results of this study indicate the burden of symptoms among hemodialysis patients is extensive and diverse, encompassing issues like fatigue, pain, and itching, which are particularly pronounced among older individuals. These symptoms significantly impair patients' quality of life. Moreover, symptom severity varies widely among patients, with certain symptoms such as sleep disturbances and itching posing significant challenges to patient comfort and wellbeing. These findings underscore the complex symptom management needs within the hemodialysis population. Future research should focus on standardizing measures of palliative care needs, evaluating the effectiveness of tailored interventions, and addressing gaps in current evidence to improve palliative care delivery and patient outcomes in hemodialysis settings.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".