A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Pretransplant Educational Intervention in Kidney Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Poor patient knowledge about transplantation is a significant problem following kidney transplant. A video-based educational intervention was developed to supplement standard education provided by transplant teams. Methods. A multicenter randomized controlled trial tested the intervention delivered to patients undergoing assessment or waitlisted for kidney transplant. Adult participants were randomized to the control (standard education) or the intervention group, consisting of electronic access to the videos (or digital video disks if no internet) plus standard education. Differences between groups in changes in transplant knowledge (measured by the Kidney Transplant Understanding Tool), education satisfaction, self-efficacy, and quality of life (secondary outcomes) were evaluated by a preintervention and postintervention survey. Video viewing habits were tracked and described for patients in the intervention group. Results. One hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled, with 132 completing both questionnaires (n = 64 intervention and n = 68 control), with similar enrollment from 3 Canadian sites. Video viewing statistics in the complete cases indicated that 78% (50/64) watched the videos, with 70% (45/64) viewing them electronically, while 8% (5/64) received digital video disks and self-reported participation. Baseline knowledge scores in the intent-to-treat population were 55.4 ± 6.5 and 55.7 ± 7.1 in the intervention and control, respectively. The mean knowledge change in the intervention (2.1 ± 3.6) was significantly higher than in the control group (0.8 ± 3.4, P < 0.02). In the per-protocol analysis (patients with objective evidence of watching at least 80% of the videos), the knowledge improvements were 3.4 ± 3.8. Video group participants reported higher satisfaction with education (P < 0.02) and expressed positive comments in open-ended feedback. Conclusions. Electronic video education in the pretransplant setting improved knowledge and satisfaction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".