Organ donation following medical assistance in dying, Part II: a scoping review of existing processes and procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to collate and summarize the current literature on what is known about organ donation following medical assistance in dying (MAiD). For this second part of a 2-part scoping review, the focus is on the existing procedures and processes for organ donation following MAiD. INTRODUCTION: Organ donation following MAiD is a novel and contentious issue worldwide. To give direction for future research and initiatives, a comprehensive understanding of the available evidence of existing procedures and processes for organ donation following MAiD is needed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: For this review, the population of interest included all individuals who underwent organ donation following MAiD; the concept was defined as procedures and processes involved in organ donation after MAiD; and the context was reports of organ donation following MAiD at home or in any health care setting worldwide. We considered quantitative and qualitative studies, text and opinion papers, gray literature, and unpublished material provided by stakeholders. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in line with JBI methodology. Published studies were retrieved from MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, and Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost). Gray and unpublished literature included reports from websites and organ donation organizations in Canada, Belgium, and The Netherlands. Two independent reviewers screened all reports (both title and abstract, and full text) against the predetermined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and completed a content analysis. Any disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved through discussion or with another reviewer. RESULTS: We included 121 documents across parts I and II, and we report on 107 documents in this second part. The majority of the 107 documents were discussion papers, published in English, and in Canada from 2019 to 2021. In the content analysis, we identified 5 major categories regarding existing procedures and processes of organ donation following MAiD: i) clinical pathways for organ donation following MAiD; ii) organ donation following MAiD and the donor; iii) clinical practice tools for organ donation following MAiD; iv) education and support for health care providers involved in organ donation following MAiD; and v) health care providers' roles and perceptions during organ donation following MAiD. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review can be used to provide support and guidance for improvements in procedures and processes, as well as a rich resource for countries currently planning to establish programs for organ donation after MAiD.
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 | 0.032 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".