Burnout and compassion fatigue among organ donation coordinators: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to develop a comprehensive description of burnout and compassion fatigue, including risk/protective factors, among organ and tissue donation coordinators worldwide. INTRODUCTION: Research on turnover rates among organ and tissue donation coordinators has shown that job tenure generally lasts less than three years, a possible consequence of burnout and compassion fatigue. Increased turnover rates of organ and tissue donation coordinators have significant impact on the ability of ODOs to optimize organ donation. This current scoping review will help inform understanding of the nature of burnout and compassion fatigue in this population as well as the available strategies for managing it. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles examining health care professionals working as organ and tissue donation coordinators, with the main concepts of interest being burnout and/or compassion fatigue, will be considered. Articles within the context of organ and tissue donation coordinators in acute care settings at any part of the organ donation process will also be considered for inclusion in this review. Quantitative and qualitative studies, text and opinion papers, unpublished material (eg, unpublished research data, reports, institutional protocols, government documents) provided by researchers in the organ donation field worldwide will also be examined for possible inclusion. METHODS: The scoping review will be performed in accordance with JBI methodology. Published and unpublished papers from 1980 to the present will be searched. Databases will include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, and PTSDpubs, while appropriate gray literature will be searched. Two reviewers will screen the papers according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data for specific variables, and perform descriptive examination.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".