ArticlePloS one2026
Multidisciplinary providers' perspectives on timely predialysis arteriovenous access preparation: An exploratory mixed-methods study in upper Northern Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely creation of arteriovenous (AV) access before hemodialysis initiation is recommended to reduce catheter-related complications and improve clinical outcomes. However, predialysis AV access preparation remains suboptimal in Thailand despite guideline recommendations and expanded hemodialysis services. Evidence comparing perspectives among professional groups involved in the AV access care pathway is limited. This exploratory regional study compared the perspectives of nephrologists, vascular surgeons, and dialysis nurses in Upper Northern Thailand and identified supportive strategies that providers considered relevant to improving timely AV access preparation.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional convergent mixed-methods study using a self-administered survey among nephrologists, vascular surgeons, and dialysis nurses practicing in hospitals and dialysis clinics across Upper Northern Thailand from February to April 2025. Likert-scale responses were summarized and compared across professional groups, and brief open-ended responses were analyzed thematically. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated during interpretation.
resultsA total of 113 providers participated, including 78 nurses, 19 surgeons, and 16 nephrologists. Integration of the quantitative and qualitative findings identified five priority barriers: limited patient understanding, late presentation, procedural waiting times, insurance or reimbursement constraints, and clinical suitability concerns. Although the broad barrier patterns were shared, the emphasis placed on particular barriers varied across professional groups. Four supportive strategies were consistently endorsed: predictable financial coverage and reimbursement mechanisms, a dedicated vascular access coordinator, electronic referral and longitudinal follow-up systems, and proactive, stage-aligned AV access planning guidelines. Qualitative responses provided context by showing that providers associated these shared strategies with different role-related considerations, including patient preparation, referral coordination, procedural feasibility, and timing of care.
conclusionsProviders in this regional study identified shared priorities for improving timely predialysis AV access preparation, while differing in the meanings and considerations they associated with those priorities. These context-specific, hypothesis-generating findings may inform locally adapted service improvement and future evaluation of the proposed strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.