Family Communication Patterns and Willingness to Engage in Family Discussion about Organ Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While individuals may register as organ donors via state organ donor registries, it is important for people who wish to donate their organs in the future to engage in family discussion about these wishes as well because family members need to consent to the wishes of the deceased. In order to better understand possible reasons why young people may or may not engage in family discussions about organ donation, the current study examined two dimensions of family communication patterns, conformity and conversation orientations, as possible moderators for organ donation related attitudes and behaviors. Undergraduate participants (N = 461) in the United States of America responded to a questionnaire assessing general communication patterns in their family, altruism, attitudes about organ donation, intention to sign an organ donor card, and willingness to talk to family about organ donation. Findings showed that attitude toward organ donation was a stronger predictor of willingness to engage in family discussion among individuals whose family communication was lower on a conformity orientation (simple slopes, b = 0.28 versus b = 0.07) than among individuals whose family communication pattern was higher on a conformity orientation. On the other hand, intention to sign a donor card was a stronger predictor of willingness to engage in family discussion (simple slopes, b = 0.70 versus b = 0.45)) among individuals whose family communication was higher on a conversation orientation than among individuals whose family communication pattern was lower on a conversation orientation. Additionally, willingness to engage in family discussion was positively related to the self-reported behavior of family discussion about organ donation one week later.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".