The Experience of Living Kidney Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the experiences, feelings, and ideas of living kidney donors. Using a phenomenological, qualitative research approach, the authors interviewed 12 purposefully selected living kidney donors (eight men and four women), who were between four and 29 years since donation. Interviews were audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim, and the analysis of the data was both iterative and interpretive. Three key themes emerged. The first was how witnessing their loved ones' experience of illness and the threat of losing the recipient influenced the participants' decision to donate. The second focused on intrapersonal (philosophy of life) and interpersonal factors (comprehensive social support networks) that influenced the decision to be tested as a potential donor and the actual process of donation. The third was the impact of giving the gift of life, which was emotional and life changing. This article provides a rich description of the experiences of living kidney donors, revealing the multiple factors influencing the decision to donate, and provides insight on how social workers and other health care professionals need to identify and address the psychosocial needs of living kidney donors and their families from the process of decision making through after donation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".