Allied health and nursing practices in pediatric solid organ transplantation: An international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With improved survival in pediatric solid organ transplantation (SOT) care has focused on optimizing functional, developmental, and psychosocial outcomes, roles often supported by Allied Health and Nursing professionals (AHNP). However, there is a scarcity of research examining frameworks of clinical practice. METHODS: The International Pediatric Transplant Association AHNP Committee developed and disseminated an online survey to transplant centers as a quality improvement project to explore AHNP practice issues. Participant responses were characterized using descriptive statistics, and free-text comments were thematically analyzed. Responses were compared across professional groups; Group 1: Advanced Practice Providers, Group 2: Nursing, Group 3: Allied Health. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 119 AHNP from across the globe, with responses predominantly (78%) from North America. Half of respondents had been working in pediatric transplant for 11+ years. Two-thirds of respondents were formally funded to provide transplant care; however, of these not funded, over half (57%) were allied health, compared to just 6% of advance practice providers. Advanced practice/nursing groups typically provided care to one organ program, with allied health providing care for multiple organ programs. Resource constraints were barriers to practice across all groups and countries. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary survey exploring AHNP roles, professionals provided a range of specialized clinical care. Challenges to practice were funding and breadth of care, highlighting the need for additional resources, alongside the development of clinical practice guidelines for defining, and supporting the role of AHNP within pediatric SOT. Professional organizations, such as IPTA, can offer professional advocacy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".