A Survey Study to Examine Willingness to Travel for Transplantation and Consider Commercial Transplantation Among a Multiethnic Cohort of Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Travel for transplantation is the movement of organs, donors, recipients, or transplant professionals across jurisdictional borders for transplantation purposes and is considered transplant tourism if transplant commercialism is involved. Little is known about the willingness of patients at risk for transplant tourism to engage in this practice. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of patients with end-stage renal disease was conducted in Canada to determine interest in travel for transplantation and transplant tourism, characterize patients according to their willingness to consider transplant tourism, and identify factors to deter willingness to consider transplant tourism. Surveys were conducted face-to-face and in multiple languages. Results: Among the 708 patients surveyed, 418 (59%) reported a willingness to travel outside of Canada for transplantation, with 24% reporting a strong willingness. One hundred sixty-one (23%) reported a willingness to travel and purchase a kidney overseas. On multivariate analysis, male sex, younger age, and Pacific Islander ethnicity were associated with higher odds of willingness to travel for transplant, whereas male sex, annual income greater than $100,000, and Asian and Middle Eastern ethnicity were associated with higher odds of willing to travel to purchase a kidney. Willingness reduced when respondents were informed of medical risks and legal implications related to travel for transplantation. Financial and ethical considerations were less effective at reducing willingness to travel for transplantation. Conclusion: There was a high level of interest in travel for transplantation and transplant tourism. Legal consequences and education on medical risks of transplant tourism may be effective deterrent strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".