Relatives’ and Intensive Care Unit Personnel’s Perspectives of Care in Organ Donation: Protocol for a Multiple Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In organ donation from deceased donors, the interaction between the donor's relatives and intensive care personnel is an important factor. The organ donation (OD) process is complex, and patients' relatives play a vital role. Intensive care professionals need knowledge about how relatives perceive and experience the process to create a caring environment and support them throughout. Therefore, this collaborative project aims to explore both relatives' and intensive care personnel's perspectives of care in deceased organ donation in Scandinavia. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) investigate donor relatives' satisfaction and ICU personnel's perception of their own professional competence and (2) explore donor relatives' and ICU personnel's experiences in the OD process to design for care and support in OD. METHODS: This protocol outlines a Scandinavian (Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) project, including 4 work packages. Work package 1 started in 2023 with the translation and validation of the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit questionnaire into a Danish version and the translation of the Professional Competence in Organ Donation Questionnaire into a Swedish and Danish version. A cross-sectional survey measuring Scandinavian relatives' perception of support in and satisfaction with the organ donation process and a cross-sectional survey measuring Scandinavian intensive care personnel's competence in organ donation are the foundation for work package 2 (2024). The data from both surveys will be analyzed using descriptive and comparative analysis. The results will inform the interview guides in qualitative studies (work packages 3 and 4). Participants in the quantitative study will be invited to participate in in-depth interviews. In work package 3, in-depth interviews will be conducted to illuminate relatives' experiences in the organ donation process. The interviews will be analyzed using thematic analysis, according to Braun and Clarke. In work package 4 (2025-2026), 1 qualitative design study will be conducted to illuminate ICU personnel's experiences. Furthermore, the results from work packages 2 and 3 will inform the development of specific programs for care, support, and communication in the organ donation process. RESULTS: The project was funded by the Norwegian Organ Donor Foundation in 2022 and Scandiatransplant in 2023. The Norwegian Nurses Organisation supports the project by funding a PhD student. The PhD student was employed by the University in Agder in May 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This project will provide new knowledge that will assist us in designing and establishing programs for care, support, and donor relatives' involvement in OD processes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55643.
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 | 0.077 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.012 |
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".