Implementation of a 1-Day Living Kidney Donor Evaluation Program: A Qualitative Analysis of Donor Candidate and Stakeholder Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A lengthy donor evaluation process hinders living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). At The Ottawa Hospital, 1-day evaluation process was recently developed, with a goal to accelerate the determination of donor suitability. The major objective of this study was to solicit feedback from donor candidates and key stakeholders who participated in the 1-day living kidney donor evaluation process, to determine the program's acceptability and factors influencing its implementation elsewhere. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with donor candidates who participated in the 1-day living kidney donor evaluation process, and with stakeholders who are instrumental to the implementation strategy. Interviews were conducted via videoconference or by telephone from May 2022 to December 2022. Directed content analysis was conducted using 2 unique frameworks for stakeholder and donor candidate interviews. Results: Our study included 13 stakeholders and 18 donor candidates, of whom 16 (89%) were women and 7 (39%) proceeded to kidney donation. Eighteen (100%) perceived the process to be both time-effective and cost-effective, due to reduced travel and missed work time. Thirteen (72%) felt that the 1-day evaluation may accelerate determination of donor suitability. Sequential virtual sessions with a nurse and social worker in advance of the evaluation day were seen as providing critical education and support. Among stakeholders, 11 (85%) emphasized donor candidate care and faster candidacy determinations. Conclusion: The 1-day evaluation process was preferred by most donor candidates, and was perceived as time-effective and cost-effective by most interviewees. An expedited, 1-day evaluation may accelerate determination of donor suitability and improve LDKT rates.
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 | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".