Experience of Hong Kong patients awaiting kidney transplantation in mainland China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper describes the experience of Hong Kong Chinese patients awaiting kidney transplantation in mainland China. BACKGROUND: While travelling to mainland China for kidney transplantation is a controversial issue, there is an increasing trend of Hong Kong Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease seeking this treatment choice, which outnumbers that performed in Hong Kong. Although these patients seek pre- and post-transplantation care from Hong Kong public healthcare system, little is known about their experience during the waiting period. METHODS: This experience is examined in an exploratory qualitative study. In-depth interviews were used to collect data from a purposive sample of 12 kidney recipients. RESULTS: Three major findings are identified: (i) transplant waiting patients may travel to mainland China for transplantation in search of normal life, (ii) they need informational support from their continuing healthcare providers in Hong Kong to make the informed decision and (iii) they perceive a variation of attitudes of nurses and doctors in Hong Kong towards transplantation in mainland China. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the literature by researching patients' perspective. The findings highlight the importance and controversy of addressing these patients' informational needs. While the authors have no inclination for or against travelling to mainland China for transplantation, the findings reveal a tenacious clinical dilemma, which deserves debate in international transplant community and further research to inform the debate. Nurse and doctors in Hong Kong may contribute to the debate by articulating their experience of caring for these patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Health information that is readily available for patients scheduled for kidney transplantation in Hong Kong should be made accessible to the whole community of patients with chronic kidney disease. To address the complexity of patients travelling to elsewhere for transplantation and the needs of these patients, provider reticence may be counterproductive.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".