Exploring the psychological effects of deceased organ donation on the families of the organ donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our specific aim was to investigate whether the donation process hindered or ameliorated the bereavement process for organ donor families, specifically with regard to depression, post-traumatic stress and grief. METHODS: Using the British Columbia Transplant Society (BCTS) database, we mailed packages to donor families who consented to and successfully proceeded to donate. Each package contained three standardized, validated questionnaires that included scales of depression, post-traumatic stress, and bereavement. We also included a newly designed questionnaire specific to the BCTS Donation Experience. Seventy-three completed packages were received and analyzed using multiple regression models. Our overall response rate was 46%. RESULTS: The younger the deceased and the shorter the time elapsed since donation, the greater the strength of bereaved feelings reported by the donor families. If donor families felt there were negative aspects about the donation process, the more likely they were bothered by symptoms of post-traumatic stress. The more comforted donor families felt about donation, the less likely they were bothered by feelings of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that donation has a beneficial effect on the bereavement process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".