A Multicenter Qualitative Investigation of the Experiences and Perspectives of Substitute Decision Makers Who Underwent Organ Donation Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organ donation research has centered on improving donation rates rather than focusing on the experience and impact on substitute decision makers. The purpose of this study was to document donor and nondonor family experiences, as well as lasting impacts of donation. METHODS: We used a qualitative exploratory design. Semistructured interviews of 27 next-of-kin decision makers were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and entered into qualitative software. We analyzed the process-based reflections using inductive coding and thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Four broad and interrelated themes emerged from the data: empathetic care, information needs, donation decision, and impact and follow-up. The donation experience left lasting impacts on family members due to lingering, unanswered questions. Suggested solutions to improve the donor experience for families included providers employing multimodal communication, ensuring a proper setting for family meetings, and the presence of a support person. DISCUSSION: We now have improved our understanding of the donation process from the perspective of and final impression from the next of kin. To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort interviewed in Canada. We have explored families' experiences, which included but did not end with donation. We learned that despite being appreciative of nurses, physicians, and organ and tissue donation coordinators, family members were often troubled by unanswered questions. CONCLUSION: This study described donor and nondonor family experiences with donation as well as lasting impacts. Addressing unanswered questions should be done in a place sufficiently remote from the donation event to enhance the family members' understanding and well-being.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".