Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Original ArticlesESRD and Chronic Dialysis
You have accessRestricted Access

A Qualitative Study to Explore Patient and Staff Perceptions of Intradialytic Exercise

Stephanie Thompson, Marcello Tonelli, Scott Klarenbach and Anita Molzahn
CJASN June 2016, 11 (6) 1024-1033; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.11981115
Stephanie Thompson
*Division of Nephrology, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcello Tonelli
†Division of Nephrology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Klarenbach
*Division of Nephrology, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anita Molzahn
‡Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background and objectives Randomized, controlled trials show that regular exercise is beneficial for patients on hemodialysis. Intradialytic exercise may have additional benefits, such as amelioration of treatment-related symptoms. However, the factors that influence the implementation of intradialytic exercise are largely unknown.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients on hemodialysis who had participated in a pilot randomized, controlled trial on intradialytic exercise and dialysis staff that worked in the unit during the trial. The trial took place from July to December of 2014 and enrolled 31 patients. Interviews were conducted from April to December of 2014. Interview coding followed an inductive and broad-based approach. Thematic analysis was used to group codes into common themes, first individually and then, across staff and patient interviews.

Results Twenty-five patients and 11 staff were interviewed. Three themes common to both groups emerged: support, norms (expected practices) within the dialysis unit, and the role of the dialysis nurse. The support of the kinesiologist enhanced patients’ confidence and sense of capability and was a key component of implementation. However, the practice of initiating exercise at the start of the shift was a barrier to staff participation. Staff focused on the technical aspects of their role in intradialytic exercise, whereas patients viewed encouragement and assistance with intradialytic exercise as the staff’s role. An additional theme of no time (for staff to participate in intradialytic exercise) was influenced by its low priority in their workflow and the demands of the unit. The staff’s emphasis on patients setting up their own equipment and enhanced social interaction among participants were additional themes that conveyed the unintended consequences of the intervention.

Conclusions The kinesiologist-patient interactions and staff readiness for intradialytic exercise were important factors in the implementation of intradialytic exercise. Understanding how unit workflow and the personal values of staff can influence implementation may improve the design of intradialytic exercise interventions.

  • dialysis
  • end-stage renal disease
  • hemodialysis
  • quality of life
  • exercise
  • qualitative research
  • Humans
  • Perception
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Sensation

Introduction

Hemodialysis (HD) treatment is characterized by low quality of life (QoL) that is comparable with that of people with metastatic cancer (1). The association between QoL, mortality, and hospitalization has been shown in ESRD (2–4), and reducing the physical, social, and psychologic effects of kidney disease is a top research priority for people with ESRD (5).

Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in people with ESRD show that regular exercise can improve QoL (6–8) by targeting physical functioning (9). Exercise prescribed during dialysis (intradialytic exercise [IDE]) may ameliorate treatment-related symptoms (such as restless legs) (10), may improve patients’ experience of the dialysis treatment (11), and is regarded as safe (12). Given the paucity of other interventions that improve QoL in this population (13), it is unclear why IDE remains underused.

Previous qualitative studies in people with ESRD have identified post-HD fatigue and low motivation (14,15) as barriers to exercise participation. However, few studies have explored the perspectives of dialysis staff (15,16) or the contextual factors that influence IDE uptake (17). Understanding the perspectives of both those delivering and receiving IDE can improve the design and implementation of interventions (18). Furthermore, the context of IDE implementation is complex, with variable resources, expertise, and organizational readiness for IDE; what may facilitate implementation in one setting may not work in another setting. To develop more effective IDE interventions, detailed information is needed on the intervention, the context of the dialysis unit, and the interaction between these factors (19). These aspects of IDE may be difficult to identify with quantitative methods alone.

In this qualitative interpretive descriptive study, we conducted interviews with participants of a pilot RCT on IDE and the dialysis staff working in the unit. The overarching aim was to describe perceptions of IDE, its key components, and its unintended consequences. Key components are those aspects of the intervention beyond the exercise itself that are critical to enhancing effectiveness (20). To determine whether aspects of the IDE intervention required adjustment before scaling up (21), we also aimed to understand the unintended consequences (positive or negative) of implementing IDE.

Materials and Methods

Design and Setting

This qualitative interpretive descriptive study was carried out in three phases coinciding with a single–center, pilot RCT (registration no. NCT02234232). The primary aim of the RCT was to evaluate the feasibility of two types of IDE, cycling and weights, compared with control. The setting was an outpatient dialysis unit servicing approximately 110 patients and employing 35 staff in a tertiary hospital in Edmonton, Canada. The interviews were conducted in three phases (Figure 1). A kinesiologist supervised most exercise sessions. Staff were instructed on how to assist with exercise equipment setup and trial documentation. After the trial, participants could continue IDE with assistance from the kinesiologist and staff.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Interview participant flow according to the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) time line. Over phases 1–3, approximately 35 unit staff were working in the unit. In phase 3, 25 of 31 participants in the RCT participated in interviews.

Our methodological approach was interpretive description (22,23). Interpretive description was developed for answering questions in health care, where the aim is to generate recommendations for clinical practice. This approach provides a systematic and inductive framework for identifying common patterns from a range of individual experiences and aims to explain these patterns in the relevant social context.

Participants

Participants were purposively selected from those affected by IDE: renal program administration, patients in the study unit, trial participants, and dialysis staff. This manuscript presents findings from interviews with staff and trial participants (phases 2 and 3). Staff (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, technicians, and service workers) were eligible to participate if they had worked in the unit during the trial. This study was conducted in a satellite dialysis unit where nephrologists are not generally present; therefore, nephrologists were not interviewed. After trial participation was complete, patients were approached for interviews by an investigator (S.T.); participation was voluntary. The Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta approved this study, and all participants gave informed consent.

Data Collection

Staff participants were interviewed by telephone by an experienced qualitative researcher not involved with the trial. Staff interviews lasted 10–20 minutes. Patient interviews took place either face to face at the hospital site or by telephone according to individual preference. Patient interviews ranged from 15 to 45 minutes and were conducted by S.T., who had established a relationship with the participants during the trial. The interviews followed a semistructured format (Supplemental Table 1). All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were verified against the audio recordings. Field notes were made after each interview.

Data Analyses

Data collection and analyses were conducted concurrently so that new concepts could be explored in the remaining interviews. S.T. is a nephrologist who was not involved in the clinical care of the patient participants, but she had an understanding of the contextual factors.

S.T. independently coded the interviews using a broad–based coding scheme (open coding). Codes were revised and reviewed for each individual interview and grouped into common themes. Themes were then compared across interviews. Codes were annotated to show the inductive reasoning process. To confirm that the beginning conceptualizations were consistent with participants’ experiences, preliminary themes were distributed to the participants (separately for staff and patient participants). Several staff and approximately one half of the patients responded. All respondents agreed that our thematic conceptualizations were consistent with their experiences. Theoretical saturation was reached.

Results

We interviewed 11 staff in phase 2 and 25 of 31 trial participants in phase 3 (Figure 1). Staff were primarily white women who were registered nurses (Table 1). The median age of staff was 42 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 30.0–52.0). The median age of patients was 57.5 years old (IQR, 49.2–68.0). Patient participants were predominantly white men: 88% had hypertension, and 52% had diabetes. The median age of the six nonparticipants was older (69.8 years old; IQR, 49.5–85.0); four patients were white, one was Asian, and one was Indian.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of staff and patient participants

Interview Themes and Subthemes

Three main themes were common to staff and patient interviews: support, the role of the dialysis nurse, and norms within the unit. No time (to support IDE) and patients getting their own exercise equipment were unique themes in the staff interviews. Social interaction was an additional theme from the patient interviews. Themes with associated subthemes and exemplar quotes are shown in Tables 2–7.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Exemplar quotes from staff and patients on the theme of support

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Exemplar quotes from staff and patients on the theme of the role of the dialysis nurse

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Exemplar quotes from staff and patients on the theme of norms in the dialysis unit

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Exemplar quotes from staff on the theme of no time to assist with intradialytic exercise

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6.

Exemplar quotes from staff on the theme of patients getting their own equipment

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 7.

Exemplar quotes from patients on the theme of social interaction

Support

After hearing of the benefits of IDE from their patients, staff agreed that the exercise program was valuable for patients (quote 1 [Q1]). However, systemic factors may have influenced staff perspectives of IDE. Changes to staffing ratios on the unit were to take effect in several months (unrelated to IDE but coinciding with initiation of the clinical exercise program). The knowledge that staffing was going to be “cut back” conveyed a lack of support from management (Q2). Several staff expressed uncertainty about the need for these changes and concern over how workflow in the unit might be affected (Q3). One staff suggested that these changes could be detrimental to patient care overall and expressed doubt in their capacity to consistently participate in IDE delivery (Q4).

Participants identified the staff and the kinesiologist as the main sources of support during the study. Several patients expressed that the staff encouraged their participation in IDE typically through simple words of encouragement (Q5 and Q6). One participant could not define how support had been conveyed to her, but the staff’s reaction to IDE had given her a sense of esteem (Q7).

It was more common for patients to comment on the inconsistency of the staff’s involvement. Many participants described lack of support in the form of inconsistent help with the exercise equipment (Q8); several participants attributed this variability to the nurse (rather than situational factors; Q9). For some patients, the staff were perceived as inaccessible for help (Q10). Another participant expressed frustration with the staff’s lack of accountability, explaining that asking for equipment from particular staff members was such a “struggle” that he did not participate in IDE when those staff members were working (Q11).

Patients commonly viewed the kinesiologist as the primary source of support for IDE. Some participants perceived support from the kinesiologist in the form of technical instruction and trusted her expertise and knowledge (Q12). For most patients, the kinesiologist’s technical instruction was interpreted as having emotional meaning. Patients expressed that they gained confidence in their physical capabilities from training with the kinesiologist. The caring and esteem conveyed in the actions of the exercise specialist enhanced patients’ body confidence, sense of capability, and feeling like an individual (Q13–Q15).

The Role of the Dialysis Nurse

Although staff recognized the benefits of IDE, they commonly expressed that assisting with IDE was not a nursing responsibility. One staff member indicated that it was the exercise (rather than assisting with a study) that was inconsistent with their role (Q16). Another staff member explained that tasks, such as IDE, were left to them by default (Q17). Although staff did not express safety concerns with IDE, one person expressed concern whether patients were “doing [the exercises] right” and commented that staff could not monitor it (Q18).

Staff frequently described their involvement in IDE in technical and procedural terms (getting equipment and documentation), and their role in encouraging patients was not commonly described. In the interview when encouragement was discussed, the staff members commented that patients would find encouragement to exercise more effective if it came from physicians, suggesting that staff may not appreciate their role in patients’ decision to exercise (Q19). Understanding of IDE could also influence staff interaction with patients. Several staff were surprised that the elderly patients had the physical capacity for IDE, whereas other patients, perceived as more suitable, were not interested (Q20). One staff member expressed that many patients in the unit were too immobile and sick to participate in IDE (Q21).

Because patients commonly viewed IDE as beneficial, many expressed that staff involvement in IDE was consistent with their role as caregiver and advocate (Q22). Patients described the staff’s role as providing encouragement and assistance with the equipment (Q22 and Q23). Most patients were aware that the staff saw IDE as “extra work”; however, many patients believed that staff participation in IDE was feasible (Q23 and Q24). One patient expressed resignation about the situation, because he viewed systemic factors as a limitation to their involvement (Q25); other patients viewed staff involvement as nurse dependent (Q26). Several patients viewed the more physically active staff as more interested in participating in IDE (Q27).

Norms within the Dialysis Unit

Many of the staff expected that, before asking for help with IDE, dialysis-related tasks at the start of the shift were completed (Q28). Initiating IDE at the start of the shift was challenging, and some staff expressed frustration about how to effectively communicate with patients about the timing of exercise during dialysis (Q29 and Q30). One staff member indicated that negotiating aspects of HD delivery with patients was a preexisting issue, suggesting that IDE may have been an additional pressure (Q31).

Patients described aspects of the unit’s social structure that were barriers to receiving assistance with IDE. Some participants were concerned that IDE would disrupt the “routine” of the unit (Q32). The existing processes for obtaining help from staff (ringing the bell) were viewed as inappropriate for IDE (Q33). One patient expressed concern that using the bell for help with exercise could have negative consequences when help was urgently needed. For one patient, not being a “bother” by asking for things was important to the role of the “good patient” (Q34).

No Time

Many staff members commented that there was “no time” to assist patients with IDE. The expectation that staff had the time to participate may have negatively influenced some staff’s attitudes toward IDE (Q35). For some staff, “no time” also meant that IDE was a low priority in their workflow and that IDE was seen as “extra work.” One staff member questioned the appropriateness of exercise for the dialysis unit (Q36). Another attributed their lack of time to the unpredictability of staffing and patient acuity. Staff often expressed that, because of the demands of the unit, the situation was irremediable (Q37).

Patients Getting Their Own Equipment

There was agreement among dialysis staff that IDE would be more sustainable if patients set up their own exercise equipment (located in the unit) before treatment. Although several staff expressed that they could help frailer patients with their equipment, other staff commented that this was not feasible (Q38). Getting one’s own equipment was valued for “saving [staff] time.” More commonly, this task was valued as a sign of the patients taking responsibility for their care (Q39).

Social Interaction

Many participants described enhanced social interactions with other IDE participants. Several of the men discussed instances when they were competing with other trial participants. These interactions were perceived as positive and promoted a sense of camaraderie and normalcy within the unit (Q40 and Q41). One participant said that IDE was a positive topic for patients outside of the unit and that she thought it had improved spirits (Q42). Another participant explained that IDE fostered a more positive common identity (Q43).

Discussion

Despite the promising results of RCTs, IDE remains underused. By identifying the key components and unintended consequences of IDE, we address an important gap on the transferability of research findings to practice. Our study provides insight into what aspects of IDE enhance its effectiveness when adapted to different contexts (24). Detecting positive unintended consequences of IDE could increase perceptions of its value. It is also important to identify the negative consequences of IDE before scaling it up.

Although the importance of exercise professional support in sustaining an IDE program has been recognized (25,26), how support functions to enhance the effectiveness of IDE and what may be required from those delivering IDE are unknown. We identified the support of the kinesiologist as a key component of IDE implementation. Social support is a multidimensional concept that includes emotional (communication of empathy and esteem) and instrumental support (offering assistance and information) (27). Previous publications have emphasized the technical role of the exercise specialist in IDE (25,26), consistent with instrumental support. However, it was the emotional interpretation of this technical support that seemed critical to enhancing perceptions of the intervention’s effectiveness and facilitated high acceptability of IDE. In one study in people with ESRD, higher levels of perceived social support, regardless of domain, predicted improved outcomes, such as QoL (28). Consistent with other research (27), we found that the emotional aspect was the most effective component of social support.

Maintaining norms within the dialysis unit was another key component of IDE delivery. Initiating exercise at the busiest time of the shift was a barrier to staff participation. Although patients viewed IDE as consistent with the staff’s role as caregiver, reluctance of some individuals to ask for help suggests that exercise was not an expected aspect of the dialysis treatment. In another study (29), patients perceived IDE as a potential burden to staff, but staff perceptions were not explored.

We found that IDE promoted social interaction among trial participants and promoted camaraderie and normalcy. Given that patients on HD rate the quality of their social interactions as low (30), greater social interaction could be a benefit of IDE. Because social interaction with other patients on dialysis is a positive aspect of in-center HD (31), IDE could improve outcomes, such as satisfaction with care. For staff, IDE was an opportunity for patients to increase responsibility for their care by getting their own exercise equipment. The extent to which this view was grounded in values of self-care or was simply about pitching in warrants additional exploration. Framing IDE within unit priorities, such as promoting self-care, may facilitate IDE uptake, whereas an emphasis on pitching in may exclude frailer patients needing more help.

Emphasis on the technical aspects of the dialysis nursing role is not unique to participation in IDE and has been explored in other studies (32). In one study (33), the increased workload in the unit and the resistance to take on new roles were factors contributing to technology-focused care. In our study, staff participants discussed several systemic factors that influenced their perceptions of their role in IDE. First, there was a perceived lack of support from management—expressed as a lack of adequate staffing. Second, consistent with findings from other studies on IDE (15,17), staff frequently mentioned that there was no time to assist with IDE. Given the high value placed on busyness in acute care nursing (34), the assumption that staff could accommodate IDE in their workflow may have negatively influenced its acceptability. The view that dealing with acute issues superseded staff capacity to take a consistent role in IDE also reflects the values of an acute care culture, where the urgent takes precedence over other important roles. Reconciling this acute care mentality with the competing priorities of chronic disease management is particularly germane for in–center HD units.

Consistent with previous research, despite the staff’s perspective that exercise was beneficial for patients (17,35), there was a lack of readiness for IDE (17,36). Our results extend these findings by identifying important considerations in implementation of IDE. First, it is important to recognize that structure of work and perceived value of tasks are grounded in organizational culture (37). For staff to prioritize IDE, management’s support of IDE must be evident to staff. In this context, support could be conveyed to staff by ensuring that adequate time is created in the staff’s workflow to accommodate participation in IDE. Second, at the individual level, increasing staff knowledge of who can perform and benefit from IDE may improve acceptability. Before implementing formalized education on IDE, it is necessary to increase staff motivation to engage with IDE. Some patients perceived that more physically active staff were more involved in IDE, suggesting that the role of the nurse in IDE is influenced by personal values about exercise. Because exercise is a socially desirable behavior, initiatives that concurrently encourage staff exercise may promote engagement in IDE.

Although the qualitative approach does not aim to generalize results, our findings should be considered in light of our study’s limitations. First, the specific context of the unit, including readiness for IDE, physician and administrator involvement, and organizational culture, may influence findings, and therefore, the transferability of findings to other centers, particularly those with different models of care, may be limited. Second, although it is possible that participants provided socially desirable responses in interviews, the candid responses from participants suggest that they were able to speak openly. Third, because of the lack of diversity in the demographics of our study population, we did not analyze our findings according to these characteristics.

We identified important areas for future study. It would be useful to explore the characteristics of exercise specialists and the specialist-patient interaction that are associated with improved effectiveness of IDE. Our results expand our understanding of the decisional influences on patient participation in IDE beyond individual factors to include those that exist at the contextual level. Future studies should consider how contextual factors may affect adherence to IDE rather than attributing poor adherence to lack of patient motivation.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported through Alberta Innovates Health Solutions.

The funders had no role in the design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, or submission of the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.11981115/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Received November 12, 2015.
  • Accepted February 23, 2016.
  • Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abdel-Kader K,
    2. Myaskovsky L,
    3. Karpov I,
    4. Shah J,
    5. Hess R,
    6. Dew MA,
    7. Unruh M
    : Individual quality of life in chronic kidney disease: Influence of age and dialysis modality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 711–718, 2009pmid:19339411
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Mapes DL,
    2. Lopes AA,
    3. Satayathum S,
    4. McCullough KP,
    5. Goodkin DA,
    6. Locatelli F,
    7. Fukuhara S,
    8. Young EW,
    9. Kurokawa K,
    10. Saito A,
    11. Bommer J,
    12. Wolfe RA,
    13. Held PJ,
    14. Port FK
    : Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Kidney Int 64: 339–349, 2003pmid:12787427
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. DeOreo PB
    : Hemodialysis patient-assessed functional health status predicts continued survival, hospitalization, and dialysis-attendance compliance. Am J Kidney Dis 30: 204–212, 1997pmid:9261030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Lopes AA,
    2. Bragg-Gresham JL,
    3. Satayathum S,
    4. McCullough K,
    5. Pifer T,
    6. Goodkin DA,
    7. Mapes DL,
    8. Young EW,
    9. Wolfe RA,
    10. Held PJ,
    11. Port FK; Worldwide Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study Committee
    : Health-related quality of life and associated outcomes among hemodialysis patients of different ethnicities in the United States: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis 41: 605–615, 2003pmid:12612984
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Manns B,
    2. Hemmelgarn B,
    3. Lillie E,
    4. Dip SCPG,
    5. Cyr A,
    6. Gladish M,
    7. Large C,
    8. Silverman H,
    9. Toth B,
    10. Wolfs W,
    11. Laupacis A
    : Setting research priorities for patients on or nearing dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 1813–1821, 2014pmid:24832095
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Heiwe S,
    2. Jacobson SH
    : Exercise training for adults with chronic kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10: CD003236, 2011pmid:21975737
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Cheema BSB,
    2. Singh MA
    : Exercise training in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis: A systematic review of clinical trials. Am J Nephrol 25: 352–364, 2005pmid:16088076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Sheng K,
    2. Zhang P,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Cheng J,
    5. Wu C,
    6. Chen J
    : Intradialytic exercise in hemodialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Nephrol 40: 478–490, 2014pmid:25504020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Spiegel BMR,
    2. Melmed G,
    3. Robbins S,
    4. Esrailian E
    : Biomarkers and health-related quality of life in end-stage renal disease: A systematic review. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 1759–1768, 2008pmid:18832106
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Giannaki CD,
    2. Hadjigeorgiou GM,
    3. Karatzaferi C,
    4. Maridaki MD,
    5. Koutedakis Y,
    6. Founta P,
    7. Tsianas N,
    8. Stefanidis I,
    9. Sakkas GK
    : A single-blind randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of 6 months of progressive aerobic exercise training in patients with uraemic restless legs syndrome. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28: 2834–2840, 2013pmid:23929523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kolewaski CD,
    2. Mullally MC,
    3. Parsons TL,
    4. Paterson ML,
    5. Toffelmire EB,
    6. King-VanVlack CE
    : Quality of life and exercise rehabilitation in end stage renal disease. CANNT J 15: 22–29, 2005pmid:16491995
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Johansen KL
    : Exercise in the end-stage renal disease population. J Am Soc Nephrol 18: 1845–1854, 2007pmid:17442789
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Jaar BG,
    2. Chang A,
    3. Plantinga L
    : Can we improve quality of life of patients on dialysis? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 1–4, 2013pmid:23296376
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Goodman ED,
    2. Ballou MB
    : Perceived barriers and motivators to exercise in hemodialysis patients. Nephrol Nurs J 31: 23–29, 2004pmid:15008071
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Kontos PC,
    2. Miller KL,
    3. Brooks D,
    4. Jassal SV,
    5. Spanjevic L,
    6. Devins GM,
    7. De Souza MJ,
    8. Heck C,
    9. Laprade J,
    10. Naglie G
    : Factors influencing exercise participation by older adults requiring chronic hemodialysis: A qualitative study. Int Urol Nephrol 39: 1303–1311, 2007pmid:17902035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Young HML,
    2. Hudson N,
    3. Clarke AL,
    4. Dungey M,
    5. Feehally J,
    6. Smith AC
    : Patient and staff perceptions of intradialytic exercise before and after implementation: A qualitative study. PLoS One 10: e0128995
  15. ↵
    1. Painter P,
    2. Clark L,
    3. Olausson J
    : Physical function and physical activity assessment and promotion in the hemodialysis clinic: A qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis 64: 425–433, 2014pmid:24656397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Bryson JM,
    2. Patton MQ,
    3. Bowman RA
    : Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Eval Program Plann 34: 1–12, 2011pmid:20674980
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Rychetnik L,
    2. Frommer M,
    3. Hawe P,
    4. Shiell A
    : Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 56: 119–127, 2002pmid:11812811
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Michie S,
    2. Abraham C
    : Interventions to change health behaviours: Evidence-based or evidence-inspired? Psychol Health 19: 29–49, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Moore GF,
    2. Audrey S,
    3. Barker M,
    4. Bond L,
    5. Bonell C,
    6. Hardeman W,
    7. Moore L,
    8. O’Cathain A,
    9. Tinati T,
    10. Wight D,
    11. Baird J
    : Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 350: h1258, 2015pmid:25791983
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Thorne S,
    2. Kirkham SR,
    3. Macdonald-Emes J
    : Interpretive description: A noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Heal 20: 169–177, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    Thorne SE: Interpretive Description, Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press, 2008
  22. ↵
    1. Hawe P,
    2. Shiell A,
    3. Riley T
    : Complex interventions: How “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ 328: 1561–1563, 2004pmid:15217878
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Bennett PN,
    2. Breugelmans L,
    3. Barnard R,
    4. Agius M,
    5. Chan D,
    6. Fraser D,
    7. McNeill L,
    8. Potter L
    : Sustaining a hemodialysis exercise program: A review. Semin Dial 23: 62–73, 2010pmid:20331819
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Bayliss D
    : Starting and managing an intradialytic exercise program. Nephrol News Issues 20: 47–49, 2006pmid:16916063
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Semmer NK,
    2. Elfering A,
    3. Jacobshagen N,
    4. Perrot T
    , Beehr TA, Boos N: The emotional meaning of instrumental social support. Int J Stress Manag 15: 235–251, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Plantinga LC,
    2. Fink NE,
    3. Harrington-Levey R,
    4. Finkelstein FO,
    5. Hebah N,
    6. Powe NR,
    7. Jaar BG
    : Association of social support with outcomes in incident dialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1480–1488, 2010pmid:20430940
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Heiwe S,
    2. Tollin H
    : Patients’ perspectives on the implementation of intra-dialytic cycling--a phenomenographic study. Implement Sci 7: 68, 2012pmid:22831388
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Fukuhara S,
    2. Lopes AA,
    3. Bragg-Gresham JL,
    4. Kurokawa K,
    5. Mapes DL,
    6. Akizawa T,
    7. Bommer J,
    8. Canaud BJ,
    9. Port FK,
    10. Held PJ; Worldwide Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study
    : Health-related quality of life among dialysis patients on three continents: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Kidney Int 64: 1903–1910, 2003pmid:14531826
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Juergensen E,
    2. Wuerth D,
    3. Finkelstein SH,
    4. Juergensen PH,
    5. Bekui A,
    6. Finkelstein FO
    : Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: Patients’ assessment of their satisfaction with therapy and the impact of the therapy on their lives. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1: 1191–1196, 2006pmid:17699347
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Bevan MT
    : Nursing in the dialysis unit: Technological enframing and a declining art, or an imperative for caring. J Adv Nurs 27: 730–736, 1998pmid:9578202
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Tranter SA,
    2. Donoghue J,
    3. Baker J
    : Nursing the machine: An ethnography of a hospital hemodialysis unit. J Nephrol Ren Transplant 3: 28–41, 2009
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Scott-Findlay S,
    2. Golden-Biddle K
    : Understanding how organizational culture shapes research use. J Nurs Adm 35: 359–365, 2005pmid:16077278
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Greenwood SA,
    2. Koufaki P,
    3. Rush R,
    4. Macdougall IC,
    5. Mercer TH; British Renal Society Rehabilitation Network
    : Exercise counselling practices for patients with chronic kidney disease in the UK: A renal multidisciplinary team perspective. Nephron Clin Pract 128: 67–72, 2014pmid:25358965
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Painter P,
    2. Carlson L,
    3. Carey S,
    4. Myll J,
    5. Paul S
    : Determinants of exercise encouragement practices in hemodialysis staff. Nephrol Nurs J 31: 67–74, 2004pmid:15008075
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    Schein E: Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd Ed., San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 1992
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 11 (6)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 11, Issue 6
June 06, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Qualitative Study to Explore Patient and Staff Perceptions of Intradialytic Exercise
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A Qualitative Study to Explore Patient and Staff Perceptions of Intradialytic Exercise
Stephanie Thompson, Marcello Tonelli, Scott Klarenbach, Anita Molzahn
CJASN Jun 2016, 11 (6) 1024-1033; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11981115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
A Qualitative Study to Explore Patient and Staff Perceptions of Intradialytic Exercise
Stephanie Thompson, Marcello Tonelli, Scott Klarenbach, Anita Molzahn
CJASN Jun 2016, 11 (6) 1024-1033; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11981115
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Association of Polypharmacy with Kidney Disease Progression in Adults with CKD
  • The Effect of Atrasentan on Kidney and Heart Failure Outcomes by Baseline Albuminuria and Kidney Function
  • Collectin11 and Complement Activation in IgA Nephropathy
Show more Original Articles

ESRD and Chronic Dialysis

  • Immunogenicity of Augmented Compared With Standard Dose Hepatitis B Vaccine in Pediatric Patients on Dialysis: a Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium Study
  • Changes in the Profile of Endovascular Procedures Performed in Freestanding Dialysis Access Centers over 15 Years
  • Prognostic Value of Residual Urine Volume, GFR by 24-hour Urine Collection, and eGFR in Patients Receiving Dialysis
Show more ESRD and Chronic Dialysis

Cited By...

  • Benefits and Barriers to and Desired Outcomes with Exercise in Patients with ESKD
  • Randomised factorial mixed method pilot study of aerobic and resistance exercise in haemodialysis patients: DIALY-SIZE!
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • dialysis
  • end-stage renal disease
  • hemodialysis
  • quality of life
  • exercise
  • qualitative research
  • humans
  • Perception
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Sensation

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire