The Potential Impact of Financial Incentives On Participation of Directed Compatible Living Donors in Kidney Paired Donation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The use of financial incentives to encourage medically suitable compatible donors already approved for directed donation, to participate in kidney paired donation (KPD) may be a non-coercive strategy to increase KPD transplants. To inform this strategy we surveyed previous directed living donors and their recipients regarding their willingness to participate in KPD with and without the provision of financial incentives to the donor. Methods: An anonymous survey was mailed to previous directed donors and their recipients in our program between 2001-2009, with the exclusion of cases where the recipient was deceased. Results: Eighty-six of the 207 (42%) donors responded to our mail survey, while 38 recipients responded. Ninety-three percent (78/86) donors and 95% (35/38) of recipients indicated that they would have participated in KPD had it been offered at the time of their transplant. The table shows the proportion of donors and recipients who would be more willing to participate in KPD with the provision of different types of financial incentives.Table: No Caption available.The survey also identified non-financial considerations that would discourage participation in KPD: Delays in transplantation >3 months, loss of an opportunity for preemptive transplantation, or requirement to travel outside the city of residence. The potential to obtain a better donor kidney (i.e. younger donor, higher HLA match) was rated important by 87% of donors, while helping multiple recipients was important to 80% of donors. Irrespective of the amount offered, a direct cash rewards did not substantially increase willingness to participate in KPD, (willingness increased in < 25% of donors and recipients). We conclude that >90% of previous directed donors and their recipients reported a willingness to participate in KPD if they had been provided the opportunity. Reimbursements for travel and lost wages, but not direct cash rewards may increase participation, while delays in transplantation > 3 months may decrease participation of directed compatible donors in KPD. 1. AJKD 2014 63(1): 133-40.
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 | 0.023 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".