Barriers towards deceased organ donation among Indians living globally: an integrative systematic review using narrative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand the barriers towards deceased organ donation among Indians living globally. DESIGN: Integrative systematic review using narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: and Google Scholar. TIME PERIOD: 1 January 1994 to 31 December 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals of Indian origin living globally. RESULTS: Eighty-nine studies were included with more than 29 000 participants and quality of the studies were assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. Though majority of the participants had knowledge toward organ donation with a positive influence on willingness, the gap between knowledge and willingness was huge, with minimal registration influenced by the complex sociocultural constructs. Various sociocultural constructs such as family, fear and mistrust, religion, and bodily issues play a vital role. Differences were identified in willingness to donate and register between southern and other regions of India. Indian's organ donation behaviour in other geographical locations differed based on the socioreligious background of the country they lived in such as in Malaysia, Canada and the UK. However, they were collective in decision-making and had complex sociocultural interference irrespective of the country the individual lived which differed only in their next generations. CONCLUSION: Though this study showed the complex relationship, and its influences on organ donation behaviour, lacunae were identified to further understand how such complex interactions determine or inform the behaviour. Also, methodological issues were identified, where this particular population outside India were collectively studied with their neighbouring population which are not homogenous. Studies in India majorly addressed a similar aim using similar methods which produced repetition of studies leading to lack of diversified, wider and in-depth research. Therefore, while this systematic review addressed the barriers toward organ donation among Indians living globally, it also informs various gaps in research and also methodological issues. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019155274.
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 | 0.027 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".