A scoping review of pediatric transplant education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Education is crucial for pediatric patients and caregivers throughout the transplant continuum, yet data are lacking around which interventions are effective and in what circumstances. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review with the objectives of (a) describing the types, effects, and outcomes of patient-focused educational interventions before and after pediatric transplant and (b) understanding the educational experiences of patients and caregivers. Five scientific databases were explored for relevant literature using the JBI methodology. Educational interventions published in English, targeting pediatric solid organ transplant patients (0-25 years) and their caregivers were included. Relevant data from eligible articles (n = 27) were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: Eighteen articles describing 17 educational interventions were identified for objective A, and nine articles qualitatively assessing patient or parental learning needs were identified for objective B. Most interventions were directed toward teenage patients and their caregivers post kidney transplant, primarily focusing on medication self-management and adherence, or providing general information on transplant using multicomponent delivery formats. Most interventions achieved statistically significant improvements in knowledge (n = 8/9) and patients or caregivers expressed satisfaction with the intervention (n = 7/7) but health-related outcomes such as medication adherence (n = 2/6) or behavior change (n = 1/3) rarely achieved statistically significant results. In objective B, patients and caregivers described the transplant process as overwhelming, but indicated that social supports and education helped them cope. Participants consistently wanted more information than they received. CONCLUSION: Caregivers and pediatric patients value transplant education, but high-quality studies are limited. Since education is a fundamental part of the transplant process, future research in this area should be prioritized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".