Transplant Journeys in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Transplant Patients, Caregivers, and Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Those on transplant journeys must try to understand and navigate a complex healthcare system. Little is known about whether the challenges they face differ based on their individual characteristics. This study was done to understand the experiences of those on transplant journeys in Canada. Using an online 57-question cross-sectional survey developed in collaboration with a patient-advisory committee, data was captured on transplant patients, caregivers, and living donors (n = 935). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses are reported. This article includes analyses not previously reported from this larger mixed-methods project. Most participants were female (70.1%), English speaking (92.6%), and white (87.8%). The top 3 concerns identified by participants included financial (42.6%), coordination of care (37.7%), and mental health (37.2%), which affected journey types, organ types, and sociodemographic groups differently. Understanding the perspectives of those going through transplant journeys is critical to inform system change. Further, identifying how individual characteristics influence transplant journeys is essential to person-centered care that creates a lasting impact on the organ donation and transplant system and health outcomes.
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".