Deciding about Lung Transplantation: Informational Needs of Patients and Support Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Information is essential for informed decision making. To date, the informational needs of patients and support persons making the lung transplant decision are unexplored; in addition, the role of support persons in the transplant decision is unknown. Objective To identify the informational needs of patients and support persons attending a transplant clinic for consultation on lung transplantation, and to identify the involvement of support persons in the decision. Design A qualitative descriptive study and qualitative content analysis. Setting—Participants were recruited from the Toronto General Hospital Lung Transplant Program. Participants Twenty-two patients (8 candidates, 14 recipients) and 16 support persons. Results Most patients made the lung transplant decision in collaboration with their support person and reported receiving adequate information to make an informed decision. Diverse learning needs were identified among and between patients and support persons. Many participants identified the need for more information on practical issues, life after transplantation, and the experiences of transplant recipients. Conclusion Most patients attending a transplant clinic for consultation on lung transplantation felt they made an informed decision; however, modifications to the content, timing, and ways of providing information could enhance the decision-making process for patients and support persons. Specifically, the transplant team can provide information on core lung transplant topics with access to supplementary information to meet specific needs and use materials that vary in source, formats, and time points during the decision-making period.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".