MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403832216 · doi:10.1681/asn.20245vn89a8y

Comparing Care Models in Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis: Insights from the Alberta Experience

2024· article· en· W4403832216 on OpenAlexaffabout
Warda Munawar, Chel Lee, Danielle E. Fox, Robert R. Quinn, David Ward, Jennifer M. MacRae

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisMedicineIntensive care medicineDialysisUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Assisted peritoneal dialysis (aPD) provides home-based support by trained healthcare professionals for individuals otherwise ineligible for independent peritoneal dialysis (PD). Alberta Kidney Care South (AKC-S) initiated an aPD program in 2011, initially led by licensed nursing practitioners (LPNs) until transitioning to healthcare aides (HCAs) in July 2018. Our objective was to assess outcomes of participants in the aPD program based on the care delivery model (LPN vs. HCA). Methods: This quantitative study utilized an interrupted time-series model to analyze participants in the AKC-S aPD program from its inception in 2011 until December 31, 2021. Deidentified data was extracted from the Nephrology electronic database. Participants were categorized into two phases based on the implementation of the care delivery model change from LPN to HCA on July 1, 2018. Phase one comprised participants who initiated aPD before this date, while phase two included those who began aPD after. The primary outcome was monthly median exit time from PD between the two care groups. Endpoints were defined as death, transplant, transfer to in-center HD, transfer to independent PD, or exit from the program. Secondary outcomes included reason for program exit and rates of peritonitis compared between the two phases. Results: A total of 135 patients received aPD (mean age= 70.7 ± 11.2 years; 44.4% female). We had 57 individuals in phase one, and 55 in phase two (23 still active participants were excluded), with no difference in sex between groups (p = 0.055). We found no difference in the time spent on PD between the LPN phase (1.89 [1.02, 3.85] years) and the HCA phase (1.41 [0.59, 3.25]), p= 0.41. There was no significant difference in the reason for exit after the change in care model (p= 0.64). The incidence rate of peritonitis in phase one was 0.403 (25 participants) and 0.466 (29 participants) in phase two, which was not statistically significant, p = 0.60. Conclusion: Our study revealed no significant difference in the duration of peritoneal dialysis (PD), reasons for program exit, or incidence of peritonitis between the LPN and HCA care models. The HCA model offers a cost-effective alternative to in-center modalities while offering personalized, in-person services that may greatly enhance the quality of care for those undergoing peritoneal dialysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→