MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385476642 · doi:10.1111/petr.14578

A scoping review of pediatric transplant education

2023· review· en· W4385476642 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Burghall, Michelle Ruhl, Nicola Rosaasen, Brianna Groot, Kayla Flood, Keefe Davis, Natasha Minakakis, Jenny Wichart, Holly Mansell

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthAlberta Health ServicesCanadian Blood ServicesSaskatchewan Health AuthorityTranslational Research in OncologySaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEPatient educationFamily medicinePediatricsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0240.024
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207