Perspectives of Caregivers on Access to Health Care for Children with CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Inequitable access to health care based on demographic factors such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status and geographical location has been consistently found in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, little is known about the perspectives of caregivers on accessing health care. We described caregivers' perspectives on accessing health care for children with CKD from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and/or rural or remote areas. Methods: Caregivers of Australian children aged 0 to 16 years, across all CKD stages, from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, and/or residing in rural or remote areas, purposively sampled from 5 centers, participated in semi structured interviews on accessing health care. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results: From 32 interviews, we identified 6 themes: lack of agency undermining ability to seek care (obscurity of symptoms, uncertain and confused about care processes, and vulnerable and unable to advocate), losing trust in clinicians (confused by inconsistencies and ambiguities in advice, and distressed by lack of collaborative care), exasperated by organizational rigidity (frustrated by bureaucratic roadblocks, lack of access to specialist care in rural and remote settings, and inadequacies of support programs), compounding burden of caregiving (unsustainable financial pressure, debilitating exhaustion, and asymmetry of responsibility), intensifying strain on family (uprooting to relocate, sibling stress and neglect, and depending on family support), building resilience and stability (empowerment through education and confidence in technical and medical support). Conclusions: Caregivers of children with CKD from disadvantaged backgrounds feel disempowered and vulnerable when accessing care for their child. Strategies are needed to improve access to health care for families who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".