Interventions for Increasing Solid Organ Donor Registration.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Although many interventions can effectively increase knowledge, attitude, and prompt family discussion about organ donation, few interventions have actually demonstrated an increase in the number of individuals registering a commitment to organ donation. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to review various interventions used to increase deceased organ donor registration. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (up to 18 November 2013] through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We used standard Cochrane Collaboration methods for systematic review and meta-analyses of intervention. The protocol is registered under the Cochrane Renal Group. Results: After the selection process had been completed, we included 13 studies for this review. Of the included studies, 9 were from US, 2 were from Netherlands, 1 from Australia and 1 from Italy. Interventions varied by design, participants and outcome measured. Classroom educational program was most commonly tested (n=4), followed by church (n=2), mailing (messaging) strategies (n=2), registration practice (n=1), worksite educational program (n=1), DMV educational program (n=1), iPod video (n=1) and internet (n=1). Four interventions focused on ethnic minorities. Eleven studies reported that the intervention successfully increasing organ donor registration, signed donor cards or willingness to donate. Ten studies were identified as having a high risk of bias, 1 was unclear and two studies had a low risk of bias. Only two studies used an objective measure to verify whether the participant registered for organ donation. The other studies (n=11) used a questionnaire to ask a variant of “Are you registered for organ and tissue donation” at post-test. These studies also reported greater effectiveness when compared to studies that used an objective measure. Only two studies measured and excluded participants who were already registered for organ donation at baseline for the intervention. Conclusion: There is a need for well-designed intervention studies. These studies should focus on reliably measuring donor registration status.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".