MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transplant Professionals’ Attitudes and Approaches to the Living Kidney Donor-Recipient Relationship

2017· article· en· W2752452862 on OpenAlexaff
Angelique F. Ralph, Phyllis Butow, Jonathan C. Craig, Jeremy R. Chapman, John S. Gill, John Kanellis, Allison Tong

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternalismPsychosocialCoercion (linguistics)DutyVulnerability (computing)Social psychologyAltruism (biology)DonationPsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePsychotherapistLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Assessment of the donor-recipient relationship is recommended by international guidelines to prevent undue coercion and ensure realistic expectations. We aimed to describe attitudes and experiences of transplant professionals on the donor-recipient relationship in living kidney donation. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with transplant professionals (nephrologists, surgeons, coordinators, social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists). Transcripts were analysed thematically. Results Fifty-four transplant professionals from thirty-two transplant centres across nine countries participated in the study. Four themes were identified: protecting vulnerability (ensuring genuine motivation, uncovering precarious dynamics, trusting emotional bonds, shared accountability, relying on psychosocial expertise, managing overwhelming and emotionally charged decisions); safeguarding against coercion (grasping broader power dynamics, justifiable probing, resigning to inevitable opacity, understanding interpersonal dynamics); minimising potential threat to relationships (protecting the bond, giving equitable attention to donors and recipients, preempting conflict, recognising changing dynamics, ensuring realistic expectations); and ambiguities in roles and responsibilities (expanding criteria and definitions of relationship, questioning medical paternalism, uncertainties in subjective assessments). Conclusion Transplant professionals regarded the donor-recipient relationship as the driving moral imperative of the donation and thus believe that assessing the donor-recipient relationship is ethically necessary to minimise the risk of undue coercion and to protect donors and recipients. However, some feel challenged in disentangling altruism and voluntariness from the potential pressures of familial and societal duty they believe donors may not disclose, and question the level of justifiable medical paternalism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207