Experience of ethical dilemmas among professionals working in pediatric transplantation: An international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Professionals working in pediatric transplantation commonly encounter complex ethical dilemmas. Most ethical research in transplantation is related to adult practice. We aimed to gain insight into ethical issues faced by transplant professionals when dealing with pediatric transplant recipients. METHODS: A two-stage study was designed; the first part was a questionnaire completed by 190 (80%) members of the International Pediatric Transplant Association (IPTA) from over 30 different countries. This was followed by a multidisciplinary focus group that explored the preliminary data of the survey. RESULTS: A total of 38% (56 of 149) respondents of the questionnaire had experienced an ethical issue between 2016 and 2018. Surgeons were more likely to have encountered an ethical issue as compared with physicians (60% vs. 35.7%, p = .035). Clinicians from Europe were more likely to have experienced an ethical issue in living organ donation compared with those from North America (78.9% vs. 52.5%, p = .005), with common ethical concerns being psychosocial evaluation and follow-up care of donors. The focus group highlighted the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to ethical issues. CONCLUSION: The results of this study can direct future research into pediatric transplantation ethics with the aim of producing educational resources, policies, and ethical guidelines.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".