An exploration of knowledge, attitudes and beliefs toward organ and tissue donation among the adult Haitian population living in the Greater Montreal area.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decision to donate organs and tissues has the potential to save and improve the quality of life of the transplant recipient. Previous studies suggest lack of information, fears, and prejudices have prevented some cultural minorities from participating in organ and tissue donation (OTD). There is scarce information about the views of those who might be approached for potential donation in the Haitian community. In fact, Haitians are the largest Black ethno-cultural community in Montreal and are at higher risk for needing a kidney transplant (Desilets & Sodjinou, 2006). PURPOSE: To learn what Haitians know and believe about OTD in order to enable registered nurses to develop culturally appropriate approaches and interventions. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design was used to explore the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward OTD among the adult Haitian population in the Montreal area. Focus groups were held with 24 members of the Haitian community and moderated by Haitian registered nurses who spoke French and Creole. DATA ANALYSIS: Group interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed for themes. Adult participants represented younger and older members of the community. They were from different socioeconomic backgrounds. FINDINGS: Knowledge about donation was influenced by the media, personal beliefs and experience, and level of trust in the health care system. Participants' recommendations on how to address OTD issues within the Haitian community were shaped by beliefs about wholeness, perceived need for donation and key persons who could influence decision-making behaviour. CONCLUSION: The level of distrust with the health care system and the study consent process used with participants might have affected the degree of participation and disclosure in discussions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".