Living Kidney Donors' Experiences with the Health Care System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore living kidney donors' perceived experiences with the health care system from the period prior to being tested as a potential donor, through to post donation discharge and follow-up. Qualitative methodology, using a phenomenological approach, explored the experiences, feelings, and ideas of 12 purposefully selected living kidney donors' interface with the health care system. Eight men and four women were interviewed four to 29 years post donation. Interviews were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. An iterative and interpretive analysis was conducted. Themes emerging from the data included factors influencing living kidney donors' decision to be tested as potential donors, the importance of emotional support, and humanistic care. This in turn impacted on their experience of: (1) the role of information in the decision-making process; (2) their tolerance of issues related to hospitalization and; (3) their perception of the quality of care. The findings of this study provide suggestions for the role of social work and improvement in the health care system to better address the needs of living kidney donors.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".