MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404523741 · doi:10.34067/kid.0000000651

Global Policy and Advocacy Initiatives for Improving Kidney Care

2024· article· en· W4404523741 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Wainstein, Sophanny Tiv, Silvia Arruebo, Fergus Caskey, Sandrine Damster, Jo‐Ann Donner, Zaghloul Gouda, Vivekanand Jha, Adeera Levin, Masaomi Nangaku, Syed Saad, Feng Ye, Ikechi G. Okpechi, Aminu K. Bello, David W. Johnson, Valérie A. Luyckx

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney360 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersInternational Society of Nephrology
KeywordsKidney diseaseNephrologyMedicineDialysisHealth carePopulationPublic healthIntensive care medicineFamily medicineEconomic growthEnvironmental healthInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Points Inclusion and prioritization of CKD and kidney failure within national health strategies are generally lacking. Countries with CKD-specific strategies tend to include and fund a broader spectrum of kidney disease populations and kidney care. Greater global and national prioritization of kidney health are required to reduce global inequities in access to kidney care. Background National strategies to address CKD are crucial to support kidney health. Lack of political support in the form of policy decisions and funding leads to fragmentation of kidney care and catastrophic health expenditure. This study used data from the third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas to obtain a global overview of the existence and reach of national strategies for kidney care. Methods We leveraged data from an international survey of stakeholders (clinicians, policymakers, and patient advocates) conducted by the International Society of Nephrology between July and September 2022. Data were extracted on existence and scope of national noncommunicable disease (NCD) and/or CKD-specific strategies and policies, as well as recognition of kidney disease as a national health priority through participant perception and existence of CKD advocacy groups. Results Overall, stakeholders from 167 countries responded to the survey, representing 97.4% of the global population. National strategies for NCDs were reported by 56% of countries. In 29% of countries, CKD was addressed within an NCD strategy, whereas 25% of countries reported CKD-specific strategies. Countries with CKD-specific strategies were more likely to address all CKD populations (non–dialysis-dependent CKD, chronic dialysis, and kidney transplantation) compared with those with NCD strategies only (51.2% versus 19%). Of the 54% of countries with any CKD strategy, 89% reported public funding of the full spectrum of CKD care compared with 64% of those with no CKD strategy. Kidney failure, CKD, and AKI were reported to be recognized as national health priorities by 63%, 48%, and 19% of countries, respectively. Conclusions The inclusion of CKD and kidney failure within national health strategies is frequently lacking. Countries with CKD-specific policies tend to include a broader spectrum of kidney disease populations and to fund kidney care more than those with CKD policies integrated within NCD strategies. Greater global and national prioritization of kidney health are required to reduce global inequities in access to kidney care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney360Same topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207