The experiences of family members of deceased organ donors and suggestions to improve the donation process: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decisions about organ donation are stressful for family members of potential organ donors. We sought to comprehensively explore the donation process from interviews conducted with family members of patients admitted to pediatric and adult intensive care units in Canada. METHODS: = 10), and analyzed themes using a modified grounded theory approach. On the basis of these interviews, suggestions were made by researchers and family members on how to improve the process of organ donation. RESULTS: We identified 3 main themes and 9 subthemes. Families need more comprehensive support around the time of donation, including having access to someone with shared experiences, support during specific moments as needed and better support during critical transitions (e.g., when the donor body goes to the operating room). The theme of better connection to recipient(s) included receiving information about the donation surgery (e.g., which organs were recovered), establishing connection with recipients (e.g., via social networks or letters) and planned encounters. Support after donation, such as updates on organ transplantation, early mental health checks and continued connection to donor organizations, could be improved. We derived 20 suggestions for improving the organ donation process, derived from interviews with family members of pediatric and adult organ donors. INTERPRETATION: We found gaps in family support during end-of-life and donation care. Feelings of abandonment, lack of support and poor-to-little follow-up provide the empirical findings needed for hospitals and organ donor organizations to provide better support to donor families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".