Evaluation of an Education Intervention to Increase the Pursuit of Living Kidney Donation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Many transplant candidates have concerns about living donation. Objective To determine whether a structured educational session increased eligible kidney transplant candidates' pursuit of living donation. Design and Intervention Eligible transplant candidates were randomized to standard of care (n = 50) or to the educational intervention (n = 50), which included both written materials and a 2-hour education session. The primary outcome was having a living donor contact the transplant program to express interest in donation for a patient, and a secondary outcome was the candidates' preference for treatment of end-stage renal disease; both outcomes were determined at 3 months after enrollment. Results Of the 100 patients randomized, 4 in the intervention group and 2 in the standard of care group had a living donor contact the program ( P = .45). Within-group changes in treatment preference from baseline were seen in the education intervention group ( P = .02), but not in the standard of care group (P = .37). Conclusions This educational intervention did not increase the likelihood of a potential donor contacting the transplant program, compared with standard care. However, patients who received the educational intervention were more likely to change their treatment preference to living donation at study completion. Research investigating other methods of increasing living transplant rates is urgently required.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".