MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323350682 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.240

A240 "MY FEELINGS AND MY THOUGHTS ARE MY LIVED EXPERIENCE, NOT THE NUMBERS THEY SHOW ME ON A PIECE OF PAPER”: INDIGENOUS EXPERIENCES OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

2023· article· en· W4323350682 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chenoa Cassidy-Matthews, Margo Pearce, Trana Hussaini, Patricia M. Spittal, Nicholas S. Caron, Cole G. J. Daley, E Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTransplantationMedicineFeelingLiver transplantationHealth careRacismFamily medicineNursingGender studiesPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSurgerySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Indigenous peoples in Canada face inequities in healthcare access due to historic and ongoing colonial systems and structures of oppression. Indigenous peoples face greater health challenges including acute/chronic disease and may require consideration for transplantation including liver, kidney, heart, and lung. In a renal transplant study, Indigenous patients were less likely to undergo transplantation compared to non-Indigenous patients on dialysis; the reasons for this disparity are not known. The experiences of Indigenous patients during the liver transplant process in British Columbia, and how transplant professionals perceive challenges faced by Indigenous people, has not been studied. Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore experiences of Indigenous patients during the liver transplant process in British Columbia, and how transplant professionals perceive challenges faced by Indigenous people. This work will provide foundational evidence for improving Indigenous patient care in the transplant process in British Columbia, in response to recommendations made to address systemic and interpersonal racism documented in the In Plain Sight report in 2020. Method Thirteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with Indigenous patients (n=7) and transplant care providers (n=6) across British Columbia, Canada. Interpretive description identified themes to inform clinical approaches and transplant care planning. Themes and related recommendations were validated by Indigenous health experts prior to contextualization. Result(s) Interviews were conducted via Zoom from April 2021-May 2022. Among liver transplant patient participants: transplants had occurred between 1992-2020; all were women; and the median age at the time of their interview was 58 years. Among transplant care provider participants, roles included nursing, social work, and surgery; 83% were women; and the median number of years in transplant care was ten. Three broad themes were identified: 1) Indigenous transplant patient participants had strong familial, cultural, and financial supports that were essential to accessing liver transplantation; 2) colonialism has created and perpetuated structural barriers preventing many more Indigenous peoples from being considered eligible for liver transplant; 3) anti-Indigenous racism and a lack of cultural safety and humility are barriers for Indigenous peoples who require timely care for liver disease and for establishing trusting relationships with care providers. Conclusion(s) To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore experiences of Indigenous liver transplant recipients and transplant care providers’ understanding of inequities uniquely experienced by Indigenous peoples. Addressing structural barriers to early linkage to care is needed and training for transplant clinicians on Indigenous histories, complex and intergenerational trauma, and cultural safety is strongly recommended. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0480.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→