Awareness of organ donation among people living with HIV in Canada: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Advancements in antiretroviral therapy (ART) have significantly increased the life expectancy of people living with HIV, shifting the clinical focus from AIDS-related complications to the management of chronic conditions common in aging populations. Organ donation by people living with HIV has emerged as a promising option to address the growing need for transplants among this population. Although Canadian policies have permitted this practice under ‘exceptional medical circumstances’ for almost a decade, no Canadian studies have assessed how aware people living with HIV are of this.Methods A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey was conducted with a convenience sample of 200 people living with HIV attending a single HIV clinic in Ottawa, Canada. Participants completed a questionnaire featuring 10 close-ended questions assessing awareness of organ donation options (transplant, education, research) and five demographic and HIV status questions at the end. Additional sociodemographic and clinical data were gathered via chart review, and chi-square tests were used to analyse the associations between participants’ characteristics and their knowledge of organ donation.Results Only 20.6% (n = 41) of respondents were aware that people living with HIV could donate organs for transplantation, 39.0% (n = 78) knew of the possibility of donation for educational purposes, and 32.8% (n = 65) recognized their ability to donate for research purposes. Awareness was strongly correlated with the likelihood of being registered as an organ donor: 20.5% of those who knew about the transplantation option were registered donors, versus 7.4% of those who were unaware.Conclusions Our findings revealed a general lack of awareness among Canadians with HIV of the possibilities of post-mortem organ and tissue donation. Since awareness is a key determinant of registration, future efforts should be made to include accurate and up-to-date information on organ donation from people living with HIV in regular HIV care. By ensuring frequent and transparent communication, we open the door to new opportunities for transplantation while also addressing misconceptions and reducing the stigma surrounding HIV care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".