Exploring interventions to support life participation for adults with chronic kidney disease: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) can experience significant health-related challenges that affect their life participation. Recent studies have identified life participation as a top priority for adults with CKD. This scoping review aims to comprehensively identify studies of interventions that targeted life participation outcomes in adults with predialysis CKD, and identify gaps in the literature. METHODS: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Five electronic databases were searched with additional sources identified through backwards chaining. Title and abstract screening were conducted independently by four screeners after initial inter-rater calibration, and full text screening and data extraction were undertaken by two researchers in duplicate. Data analysis was completed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: This scoping review identified twenty-three studies that examined interventions to support life participation in the CKD population. No studies targeted life participation as a primary outcome. When categorizing studies via the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) the majority (87%) of interventions targeted personal-physical mechanisms of disability, with a predominant focus on pharmacological (48%) or exercise (35%) interventions. Dedicated outcome measures for life participation were rarely used, with the role-physical, role-emotional and social functioning subscales of the SF-36 quality of life assessment being the most common life participation outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights a lack of research and prioritization of life participation in CKD. It demonstrates the narrow scope of intervention approaches used to support life participation, and limitations in how studies assess life participation. These gaps indicate a need for further research to support this top priority health outcome for the CKD community. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: As this is a scoping review, no clinical trial number is provided.
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 | 0.020 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".