Family and emergency physicians’ knowledge and attitudes toward organ donation and deemed consent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand Nova Scotian family physicians' and emergency department (ED) physicians' knowledge of, attitudes about, and experience with organ donation and transplantation in the context of the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act (HOTDA). DESIGN: An electronic, self-administered survey. SETTING: Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: All family physicians and ED physicians practising in Nova Scotia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, experience with organ donation and transplantation, knowledge about organ donation and HOTDA, attitudes toward organ donation and HOTDA, and opportunities for and barriers to the implementation of the HOTDA in clinical practice. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 211 family physicians and 73 ED physicians responded to the survey. Most respondents had favourable attitudes around organ donation and most supported a deemed consent model. Nearly three-quarters of family physicians indicated they have a conversation around organ donation only if it is initiated by the patient. In the ED setting, the most common barriers to organ donation and deemed consent were lack of familiarity with the organ donation referral process, refusal of permission from families, and unknown wishes of the deceased. CONCLUSION: Family physicians and ED physicians had positive attitudes toward organ donation, including high support for a deemed consent model. However, specific knowledge gaps and training topics were identified that should be addressed within the context of this model.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".