Adolescent classroom education on knowledge and attitudes about deceased organ donation: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many countries, adolescents can choose to register a deceased organ donation wish when they apply for a driver's license. They often receive education about deceased organ donation in order to make an informed choice. The objective of this review was to describe the effectiveness of school-based educational programs on deceased organ donation among adolescents. We reviewed any study of adolescent students receiving a school-based educational program on deceased organ donation. The outcomes were knowledge, attitudes, intent to register a preference toward deceased organ donation, and whether such education fostered family discussions about organ donation. Fifteen studies were summarized from nine countries, of which six were randomized controlled trials. Most educational programs consisted of one or two classroom sessions. The methods employed in five studies received a high-quality rating. Educational programs increased knowledge in 10 studies, and attitudes in five studies, with variable effects on intent to affirmative registration. Seven studies reported success in promoting family discussions. Adolescent classroom education is a promising strategy to improve knowledge about deceased organ donation and appears to increase public support for donation. Subjecting these programs to additional evaluation will clarify their impact on affirmative donor registration and realized donations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".