Raising Awareness through Public and Media Relations; Is it Marketing or Education?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background of Problem: Analysis of pancreas transplant awareness and referral patterns indicated that only a fraction of the dialysis centres and endocrinologists were referring patients for K/P transplantation. As a result, many patients who would benefit from K/P or pancreas transplantation were not offered this opportunity. A lack of knowledge among nephrologists and endocrinologists about the progress in pancreas transplantation and subsequent success rates inhibited patient referral. Patients with type 1 diabetes, even those on dialysis, were either unaware of transplant options available to them - or believed that a transplant may make them worse. Goals of Project: The goal of the campaign was to raise awareness of pancreas transplantation. We sought to enhance the quality of patient care by improving communication with referring centres and through public education using social and conventional media tools. Interventions: Our program embarked on a campaign targeting 3 levels, physicians, dialysis nursing staff and patients. Our key components included a new brand identity using posters,/brochures, an e-blast targeting physicians and new templates for the program. Using social media such as twitter, blogging, Facebook and YouTube we sought to educate patients regarding options. Lunch and learn sessions were held in dialysis units to encourage advocacy for potential patients. Outcomes: To date the media campaign has produced an increase in referrals to our program by over 400% over a 6 month period. Our campaign has been highly successful and has significantly improved our communications with patients and referring centres. To maintain this success we have designed a long-term strategy to promote awareness for pancreas transplantation and to establish ourselves as a leading pancreas transplant centre.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".