The views of UK Chinese individuals towards living and deceased-donor kidney transplantation: A qualitative interview study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The views of UK Chinese people towards transplantation and organ donation are not known. It is not known whether the perspectives of Chinese people living in the UK differ from those of Chinese people living elsewhere in the world, or whether perspectives of UK Chinese people vary according to time spent living in the UK. This qualitative interview study aimed to investigate the views of UK Chinese individuals towards kidney donation and transplantation. It formed part of a convergent parallel mixed-methods programme of research alongside a quantitative registry study which found that UK Chinese individuals experience poorer access to living-donor kidney transplantation compared to UK White individuals. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with sixteen participants across three UK cities. Participants were permanently resident in the UK and self-identified as UK Chinese. Interviews were conducted between 9th April 2020 and 16th July 2020. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded using NVivo software, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Three main themes and seven sub-themes were identified: (1) Importance of kinship: biological and social (i) Familism, ii) Relationship hierarchy, iii) Matching; (2) Donor sacrifice (i) Negative impact on donors, ii) Bodily integrity after death; and (3) Patient as information gatekeeper (i) Culture of silence, ii) A perceived need for education and engagement. This study provides insights that may offer some explanation for reduced rates of living-donor transplantation amongst UK Chinese individuals. Further research is required to investigate observational research findings not explained here, and to develop effective strategies to improve treatment access for UK Chinese individuals with kidney disease.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".