The Psychosocial Adjustment of Kidney Recipients in Canada's Kidney Paired Donation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Kidney paired donation programs have been implemented globally. The involvement of at least 2 donors in these programs might exacerbate recipients’ debt of gratitude and guilt, worries about the donor's health, and worries about graft failure documented by previous studies. However, there is an absence of research on the psychosocial implications of kidney paired donation. This study aimed to provide an in-depth examination of recipients’ experience of kidney paired donation, with a focus on psychosocial adjustment. Methods/Approach: Individual interviews were conducted with 8 recipients who received a transplant through Canada's Kidney Paired Donation program. Data was analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Findings: Four themes emerged: (a) an emotionally charged relationship with the known donor, (b) optimal distance regulation in the relationship with the anonymous donor, (c) kidney paired donation as a series of ups and downs, and (d) multilayered gratitude. Discussion: Findings are considered in relation to extant literature. Issues relevant to the transplant community's clinical and research efforts to provide kidney recipients responsive care are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".