The Psychological and Financial Impact of Long-distance Travel for Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients who travel long distances to undergo liver transplantation have limited opportunities to develop confidence in their new healthcare providers and experience fewer support visits from family and friends at the transplant site. The objectives of this study were to document the psychological and financial impact of having to travel long distances for liver transplantation in adult liver disease patients. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective study that used a 7-question survey, including Likert scales, patient recall, and administrative databases. RESULTS: Ninety-six adult outpatient liver transplant recipients (59% males; mean age, 43.1 ± 2.1 y) participated in the survey. Approximately 70% (more so among males and higher educated patients) felt that they had sufficient time to develop confidence in their new healthcare providers and 87% felt that confidence in their local healthcare providers had not been diminished by undergoing the procedure elsewhere. Forty-four percent of patients felt that their overall liver transplant experience had been compromised by more limited opportunities for support visits, a perception that was twice as common in females. Median out-of-pocket expenses were under $5000, and inflation corrected costs to third-party payers have been stable for the past 20 y. CONCLUSIONS: The principal psychological impact of travelling long distances for liver transplantation relates to the consequences of fewer support visits. Confidence in the new and local healthcare teams is not compromised by such travel in most patients. Out-of-pocket expenses are under $5000, and transplant costs to third-party payers have remained stable over the past 20 y.
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 | 0.000 | 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".