“My feelings and my thoughts are my lived experience, not the numbers they show me on a piece of paper”: Indigenous experiences of liver transplantation in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples in Canada face healthcare inequities impacting access to solid organ transplantation. The experiences of Indigenous patients during the liver transplant process, and how transplant professionals perceive challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples, has not been studied. Thirteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted via telehealth with Indigenous liver transplant patients (n = 7) and transplant care providers (n = 6) across British Columbia, Canada between April 2021—May 2022. Themes were identified to inform clinical approaches and transplant care planning and validated by Indigenous health experts. Among patient participants: transplants occurred between 1992–2020; all were women; and the mean age at the time of interview was 60 years. Among transplant care provider participants: roles included nursing, social work, and surgery; 83% were women; and the median number of years in transplant care was ten. Three broad themes were identified: Indigenous strengths and resources, systemic and structural barriers, and inconsistent care and cultural safety across health professions impact Indigenous patient care during liver transplantation. This study contributes insights into systemic barriers and Indigenous resilience in the liver transplant journey. Dismantling structural barriers to early linkage to care is needed, and training for transplant clinicians on Indigenous histories, cultural protocols, and cultural safety is strongly recommended.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".