Organ Transplantation for Foreign Nationals in Canada: A Survey of Transplant Professionals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Transplantation for foreign nationals (non-citizens and non-residents) (FNs) in Canada is a complex issue. Currently, there are no Canadian guidelines for the provision of organ transplantation for FNs, and no empirical data on this issue or on transplant professionals' practices are available. OBJECTIVE: This project aimed to gather empirical data on transplant professionals' perspectives and practices regarding transplantation for FNs. DESIGN: Survey research design. SETTING: A Web-based survey of members of the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST). PARTICIPANTS: All members of the CST were invited to participate between April and June 2016. MEASUREMENTS: Multiple-choice questions were developed to capture participants' attitudes toward different fictitious clinical scenarios in which an FN needed a transplant, their experiences with FNs, their attitude toward FNs in need of transplantation, their knowledge about relevant institutional and organ donation organization (ODO) policies, and their perspectives on a quota. There were two questions with a five-point Likert scale to measure respondents' agreement with statements related to possible policy options and arguments for and against transplantation for FNs. There was one open-ended question about the content of transplant programs' policies on transplantation for FNs. METHODS: Descriptive statistical analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 87 transplant professionals completed the survey. Over the 4-year period from 2012 to 2016, 47.1% of respondents dealt with at least one situation of listing or performing a transplant for an FN. Only 19.5% of respondents reported that their transplant program had a policy about transplantation for FNs and 59.7% did not know if their ODO had such a policy. When asked about policy options, 47.5% disagreed with a policy of no transplantation for FNs and 41.4% agreed with offering transplantation for FNs in some circumstances (including life-saving and non-life-saving organs). Study participants agreed that transplantation should not be offered to FNs traveling to Canada specifically for transplantation, that FNs should not be transplanted with organs not suitable for Canadian citizens and that there should not be a transplantation quota for FNs. Participants also seem to be more inclined to offer transplantation of life-saving organs, particularly for children. LIMITATIONS: The major limitation of this study is the low response rate of transplant professionals to this survey. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to describe Canadian transplant professionals' perspectives on transplantation for FNs. The findings of this study will be of interest for future policy development on access to transplantation for FNs. Further studies are needed to gather various key stakeholders' perspectives on this issue, as well as to analyze the legal and ethical issues and the economics, to develop future policies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».