Pediatric Sibling Donors of Successful and Unsuccessful Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants (HSCT): A Qualitative Study of Their Psychosocial Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychosocial impact of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) on sibling donors, particularly in unsuccessful HSCTs. METHODS: Fifteen sibling HSCT donors, 8 who had participated in successful transplants, and 7 whose recipient sibling died, were interviewed (M age = 19.6 years at time of interviews, and 13.3 years at time of sibling's HSCT). Grounded theory methodology was used to derive themes from interviews. RESULTS: Siblings in the unsuccessful transplant group reported greater negative impact and feelings of guilt following the HSCT and were less likely to experience positive psychological effects. Both groups reported that informed consent involved "no choice" and that psychological aspects of the procedure outweighed physical aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Some themes differentiated sibling donors of successful and unsuccessful transplants, while others were common to both groups. All emergent themes reinforced the importance of providing sibling donors with developmentally appropriate, accurate information and long-term psychological support.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".