Defining Quality Criteria for Success in Organ Donation Programs: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Well-established performance measures for organ donation programs do not fully address the complexity and multifactorial nature of organ donation programs such as the influence of relationships and organizational attributes. Objective: To synthesize the current evidence on key organizational attributes and processes of international organ donation programs associated with successful outcomes and to generate a framework to categorize those attributes. Design: Scoping Review using a mixed methods approach for data extraction. Setting: Databases included PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, ABI Business ProQuest, Business Source Premier, and gray literature (organ donation association websites, Google Scholar—first 8 pages), and searches for gray literature were performed, and relevant websites were perused. Sample: Organ donation programs or processes. Methods: We systematically searched the literature to identify any research design, including text and opinion papers and unpublished material (research data, reports, institutional protocols, government documents, etc). Searches were completed on January 2018, updated it in May 2019, and lastly in March 2020. Title, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by 2 reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. Data extraction followed a mixed method approach in which we extracted specific details about study characteristics such as type of research, year of publication, origin/country of study, type of journal published, and key findings. Studies included considered definitions and descriptions of success in organ donation programs in any country by considering studies that described (1) attributes associated with success or effectiveness, (2) organ donation processes, (3) quality improvement initiatives, (4) definitions of organ donation program effectiveness, (5) evidence-based practices in organ donation, and (6) improvements or success in such programs. We tabulated the type and frequency of the presence or absence of reported improvement quality indicators and used a qualitative thematic analysis approach to synthesize results. Results: A total of 84 articles were included. Quantitative analysis identified that most of the included articles originated from the United States (n = 32, 38%), used quantitative approaches (n = 46, 55%), and were published in transplant journals (n = 34, 40.5%). Qualitative analysis revealed 16 categories that were described as positively influencing success/effectiveness of organ donation programs. Our thematic analysis identified 16 attributes across the 84 articles, which were grouped into 3 categories influencing organ donation programs’ success: context (n = 39, 46%), process (n = 48, 57%), and structural (n = 59, 70%). Limitations: Consistent with scoping review methodology, the methodological quality of included studies was not assessed. Conclusions: This scoping review identified a number of factors that led to successful outcomes. However, those factors were rarely studied in combination representing a gap in the literature. Therefore, we suggest the development and reporting of primary research investigating and measuring those attributes associated with the performance of organ donation programs holistically. Trial Registration: Not applicable.
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 | 0,216 | 0,515 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,062 | 0,054 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 ».