Attitudes May Be Hard to Change: Canadian Organ Donors Consider Face and Hand Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Despite the success of composite tissue allograft (CTA) such as face and hand transplant at improving recipients’ quality of life, organ donors’ hesitation needs to be better understood. The aim of the study was to assess Canadian organ donors’ willingness to donate their face and hands, and the efficacy of an educational intervention. Methods: Canadians registered for organ donation were invited to complete an online survey about CTA. An interactive vignette was introduced part way through to clarify transplant-related concepts, with repeat of questions post-vignette exposure to assess attitudes pliability. Results: A total of 942 participants completed the survey. Fifty-two percent of donors were willing to donate their face after passing, whereas 80% were willing to donate their hands. Reasons to refuse CTA donation included the risk of upsetting their family, having someone look like them, and wanting their body to remain intact. Donors’ willingness to donate their face (38%, P < 0.001) and hands (79%, P = 0.67) decreased following vignette exposure. Comparative analysis of our interventional vignette with a similar study where donors’ donation readiness increased after an educational intervention revealed that our vignette lacked a strong enough emotional component to positively impact donors’ attitude to CTA, and may have exposed participants to alternatives to transplant they were not previously aware of. Conclusions: Canadian organ donors surveyed were willing to donate their face and hands following death, a willingness reduced after watching our informative vignette. Further qualitative work is required to better understand the educational needs and areas to address to increase donors’ acceptance of CTA.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".