‘Was my kidney biopsy worth it?’–A qualitative phenomenological study of patient experiences and perceived barriers to kidney biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney biopsy is an important investigation in nephrology and facilitates the diagnosis of many conditions. It is an invasive procedure with the risk of significant complications, which limits its usage. There is minimal literature on how patients experience a kidney biopsy. Identifying and addressing barriers to access may expand opportunities for diagnosis and treatment. We hypothesise that patients experience kidney biopsy differently, depending on each individual's circumstances. METHODS: Ten participants, who had undergone a total of twenty-three kidney biopsies were recruited through purposive sampling. They were interviewed about how they experienced the procedure, how they felt it had impacted their own medical care and about potential barriers and facilitators to access for other patients. A descriptive phenomenological approach was utilised and thematic analysis was applied to responses. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: Unforeseen health concerns discovered, resilience and re-evaluation and the need for a patient-centred approach to biopsy. The experience of pain and discomfort varied amongst patients, but there was a significant emotional and psychological toll associated with kidney biopsy. All patients felt that the procedure had a positive impact on their treatment course through increased diagnostic information for them and their healthcare team. Further information in advance and the presence of trusted healthcare staff were identified as facilitators to kidney biopsy. CONCLUSION: Kidney biopsy is experienced differently by patients. Improved information in advance by trusted healthcare professionals may reduce patient-related barriers to biopsy access.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".