Becoming unique: A qualitative study of identity development of adolescent kidney recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teenagers who receive a renal organ transplant have to take up the double challenge of identity development, the primary task of adolescence, and of overcoming the complexities of their illness. Previous qualitative studies found that adolescents felt that the organ transplant and its treatments mainly defined who they are. The relationship to the donor can be a source of concern for some of them, especially for those who received from a parent and feel an obligation to be obedient and grateful. While donor parents are known to interpret their gesture as giving life for a second time, no research to date has described how this particular gesture may influence adolescent development. The present article aims to examine and describe identity development of teenage kidney recipients in a context of parental or deceased donation. We used a qualitative design involving individual interviews with 10 adolescents. Five of them received from a donor parent, five from a deceased donor. Data were analyzed using IPA. Results suggest that identity development is influenced by similar concerns for all adolescents regardless of donor source: body image, social relationships, and anxiety about the future. One aspect that stood out from the discourse of those who received from a parent was feelings of guilt towards the donor when engaging in behaviors that could comprise graft survival, which was a challenge for identity development. Receiving the transplant freed teens from the struggle of just managing their illness and was a catalyst for exploration and engagement, which are crucial for identity development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".