MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Canadian survey of patients’ attitudes toward donation of products of conception for research at the time of their aspiration abortion

2022· article· en· W4282965372 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aleah Hazan, Brian Fitzsimmons, Arianne Albert, Regina Renner

Bibliographic record

VenueContraception · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsAbortionMedicineDonationDemographicsFamily medicineMeaning (existential)Descriptive statisticsWillingness to acceptTissue DonationDescriptive researchContent analysisGynecologyPregnancyPsychologyOrgan donationTransplantationSurgeryDemographyWillingness to paySocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We explored patients' attitudes toward donating products of conception for research at the time of their aspiration abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed patients presenting for first or second trimester aspiration abortion to the abortion service at British Columbia Women's Hospital over a 6-month period in 2018. Questions explored demographics, attitudes toward tissue donation, willingness to donate products of conception for research, and how the option of donating tissue influenced patients' perception of their abortion. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and answers to open-ended questions using content analysis. RESULTS: The partially tracked response rate to our survey was n = 35 of 46 (76%). Of 98 respondents included for analysis 77 (79%) were willing to donate their products of conception to research. Most respondents (n = 85, 93%), 49 (54%) of whom had ever been offered to actually donate tissue, reported that tissue donation would either positively change (n = 33, 36%) or not change (n = 52, 57%) how they felt at the time of their abortion. The majority of respondents (n = 25, 60%) who were not invited to donate their products of conception would have liked the opportunity to do so. Content analysis of open-ended responses from those willing to donate identified the categories of helping others, contributing to research and providing meaning beyond the respondents' individual experience. CONCLUSION: Patients' willingness to donate products of conception to research and their associated positive attitudes provide important support for researchers and clinicians who are involved in research that uses products of conception. IMPLICATIONS: Our data may inform research programs and abortion clinics involved in research using products of conception by better understanding the patient experience of being involved in this type of research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContraceptionSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207