Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Perspectives on Improving Provider-Patient Interactions in Hemodialysis: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Improving interactions between people receiving hemodialysis and health care providers of facility-based hemodialysis care is a top priority for patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Objective: To identify challenges for high-quality clinical interactions in facility-based hemodialysis care as well as potential solutions. Design: Multicentre qualitative study using focus groups and semi-structured interviews to elicit the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Setting: Five Canadian facility-based hemodialysis centers. Participants: English-speaking adults receiving facility-based hemodialysis for longer than 6 months, their caregivers, and hemodialysis health care providers. Methods: Between May 2017 and August 2018, focus groups and interviews with patients and their caregivers subsequently informed semi-structured interviews with providers. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis with application of a grounded theory approach. Results: (bidirectional). Challenges were grouped into 4 main themes as follows: (1) culture of care provision; (2) mistrust between patients and health care providers; (3) time constraints for clinical interactions, and (4) lack of collaboration and care coordination among health care team. Potential solutions were identified for each challenge. Limitations: Findings were limited to Canadian context, English-speaking adults, and individuals receiving facility-based hemodialysis in urban centers. Conclusions: Interactions between health care providers and people receiving dialysis are often unidirectional, where the patient is a passive recipient of ideas and information from the health care provider. To promote improved bidirectional interactions, team-based care that includes better tools to improve information transfer, better information regarding roles, and identity of health care team members and opportunities for all members of the health care team, including the people receiving dialysis, to provide input on care plans is required. Trial Registration: Not applicable.
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 | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".