Attitude of Healthcare Professionals and Patients With End‐Stage Kidney Disease Towards Home Hemodialysis: A Survey in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Home hemodialysis is still in its early stages in mainland China. This survey aimed to assess the perceptions of healthcare professionals and patients towards home hemodialysis and to identify the barriers hindering its uptake. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational survey was conducted using convenience sampling. Healthcare professionals specializing in nephrology and patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) across mainland China were included. A self-reported questionnaire was administered to gather data on participants' demographics, attitudes, perceived barriers, and facilitating factors related to home hemodialysis. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the association between categorical variables. FINDINGS: A significant majority (80.1%) of healthcare professionals recognized the need for home hemodialysis. However, there was a statistically significant difference in willingness to undertake or receive home hemodialysis between healthcare professionals (53.6%) and patients (63.2%), respectively. Healthcare professionals identified the following as top facilitating factors: patients' needs (6.9 points), higher patient benefits (5.7 points), and shortage of dialysis resources (5.1 points). The primary barriers cited were the absence of relevant policies and regulations (7.5 points), lack of guidelines and management standards (7.0 points), and inadequate treatment technology and knowledge (6.6 points). Patients' willingness to accept home hemodialysis was primarily driven by the potential to save time and travel expenses (70.7%) and reduce infection risk (49.0%). The main barriers identified by patients were the inability to manage acute complications (77.8%), increased risk of vascular access infection (66.1%), and uncertainty about self-cannulation (60.7%). CONCLUSION: There is a clear demand for home hemodialysis in China among both healthcare professionals and patients with ESKD. However, the lack of a supportive system, including policies, standards, and management frameworks, remains a significant obstacle to its widespread adoption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".