Exploring educational and training approaches for organ and tissue donation coordinators: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Organ and tissue donation coordinators often have limited training leading to reduced service quality and increased work-related stress. Understanding the existing educational strategies and training methods is crucial for supporting their professional development. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize existing literature on strategies used to educate healthcare professionals for the role of organ and tissue donation coordinators. DESIGN: Scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Latin American and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences up to 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Reports on education for healthcare providers working as organ and tissue donation coordinators were included. Reviewers independently screened documents for eligibility based on inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study design, sample, educational strategies, and outcomes were extracted using a specially developed tool. The data were analyzed quantitatively (simple numeric count) and qualitatively (content analysis). RESULTS: From 5420 articles, 33 met the inclusion criteria. The results were categorized into (1) Education Types and Engagement, (2) Education Strategy Development and Delivery, and (3) Education Evaluation Methods and Outcomes. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the diverse types, delivery methods, and evaluation approaches in organ and tissue donation coordinators' educational training. Ongoing education is vital to equip organ and tissue donation coordinators with essential skills for complex scenarios in organ donation and transplantation. Investing in comprehensive education programs is crucial for enhancing organ and tissue donation coordinators' work-related wellbeing, improving organ donation and transplantation outcomes, and promoting continued research and development tailored to their unique needs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".