A Clinical Group's Attempt to Raise Awareness of Organ and Tissue Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Little is known about factors that influence attitudes and beliefs about organ and tissue donation among health science college students. Objective To assess health sciences college students' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about organ donation and to determine if an educational session increases awareness and influences their attitudes and beliefs related to organ donation. Design Quantitative quasi-experimental study with semistructured questions administered to a convenience sample. Setting School of health sciences in a large, urban, multicultural community college in Ontario, Canada. Participants 240 health sciences' college students from 6 academic programs: bachelor of nursing from first and fourth year, practical nursing, paramedic, funeral services, and occupational therapy/physical therapy assistant. Intervention An educational session and 7-minute audiovisual presentation on organ donation. The educational session included a 20-minute PowerPoint presentation addressing statistics of organ and tissue need and donation; types of donation—deceased (brain-dead), live, and tissue; clarification on the criteria for brain death; donor cards; family consent, including clarification that the family member has the ultimate decision to sign it and the importance of communicating one's wishes to one's family; and religious beliefs and common myths and misconceptions. Results Of 235 students who completed the postintervention survey, 86% (n=202) were more aware of organ donation, and 85% (n=199) were more aware of living donation. Awareness of the need for family consent for donation increased significantly (from 52% to 96%, P< .001). The percentage of participants willing to donate their organs increased from 52% to 63% (n=26, P<.01). Among the 20% of participants (n = 47) who responded that they would not donate their organs, the predominant rationale was “fear.” Conclusions Educational sessions in the health sciences curriculum can increase awareness of organ and tissue donation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".