MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health Professionalsʼ Perspectives On Gift-Exchange in Altruistic Unbalanced Paired Kidney Exchange and Kidney Paired Donation.

2014· article· en· W2771309165 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Chantal Fortin, N. Boudreault, C. Durand, Andrée Duplantie

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonationKidney donationKidneyMedicineAltruism (biology)Health professionalsKidney transplantationPsychologyInternal medicineSocial psychologyHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The gift exchange cycle is characterized by a triple set of norms: to give, receive and repay. This set of norms applies to living related kidney donation. Do new modalities of living organ donation such as kidney paired donation (KPD) and altruistic unbalanced paired kidney exchange (AUPKE) alter the gift relationship? The aim of this study is to examine how health professionals view the gift relationship in AUPKE and KPD. Methods: A total of 19 transplant professionals working in 4 Canadian transplant programs, and 19 non-transplant professionals (referring nephrologists and pre-dialysis nurses) working in 5 Quebec dialysis centres took part in semi-structured interviews between 11/2011 and 06/2013. The content of these interviews was analyzed using a qualitative data analysis method. Results:To give: Respondents mentioned that the principal motivation to donate in AUPKE would be altruistic, since the donor would help more individuals than in living related donation. Some professionals were concerned that the donor and recipient in AUPKE or KPD have no emotional relationship while others did not see this as problematic, since the gesture is the same, whether one donates to a stranger or a loved one. To receive: Respondents were divided on the issue of receiving a kidney from a loved one or stranger. For some, the priority was for the recipient to get a functioning kidney; others acknowledged the importance of receiving a kidney from a known donor because of the emotional relationship and knowledge of the donor's lifestyle. To repay: For many respondents, AUPKE or KPD would not alter the obligation to repay, since the recipient's gratitude would be the same, regardless of the donor. Also, AUPKE or KPD could mitigate the “tyranny of the gift” that can occur in living related donation. On the other hand, some respondents believed that being related to the donor could be an added incentive for recipients to adhere to their treatment regimens. Conclusion: The results of this study show that respondents were divided on how AUPKE and KPD could alter the gift exchange in living organ donation. With AUPKE and KPD, the kidney of a living donor becomes a public resource, just like the kidney of a deceased donor. This change in the nature of the gift could have an impact on policies and practices.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.026
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207