MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414295849 · doi:10.1111/hdi.70027

In‐Center Dialysis Patients' and Staff Perspectives of Assisted Home Hemodialysis: A Three‐Phase Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4414295849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vikram Mitra, Victoria E. Jackson, John Woods, Sandip Mitra, Kunaal Kharbanda

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome dialysisHome hemodialysisDialysisHemodialysisMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The majority of growth in the rising dialysis population remains within in-center hemodialysis, stretching capacity. Despite national strategies promoting home hemodialysis, uptake remains low. Assisted home hemodialysis may overcome challenges by supporting patients who wish to dialyse at home but require assistance. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, interest, and operational implications of assisted home HD through multi-modal data collection amongst prevalent in-center HD patients and staff members. METHODS: A feasibility study incorporating patient surveys, focus groups, and care model development was conducted recruiting from three renal centers in the United Kingdom. Outcomes measured utilized structured patient questionnaires to assess patient perspectives, interest in assisted home HD, and assistance needs. Focus groups explored barriers and concerns regarding delivery. Hypothetical cost modeling was estimated. FINDINGS: Four hundred and sixty-five in-center hemodialysis patients from three UK centers participated, with a median age of 66 years. 34% of patients, a significantly younger (p < 0.01) group with higher disability (p < 0.05), answered "yes" when asked if they would consider a switch to assisted home HD, compared with 44% who answered "no", and 22% were unsure. Patients expressed varying degrees of assistance needs across dialysis tasks, with cannulation (65%), machine connection (51%), and set-up (38%). Patients voiced concerns about safety during home treatment and missing social aspects of in-center care, though many also expressed a desire for greater autonomy. Five key themes emerged around staffing practices in implementing assisted home HD, which included (i) boundaries of care, (ii) staff training and supervision, (iii) staff responsibility, (iv) back-up and support requirements, and (v) implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Assisted home HD demonstrates a feasible and desirable option for in-center dialysis patients. Assisted home HD presents as a potential model for overcoming barriers to home HD adoption by prevalent HD patients. Assisted home HD care models should explore varying levels of assistance at home. The findings of this study merit further exploration through implementation pilots and outcomes-based studies.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→