ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2012
Narratives: an essential tool for evaluating living kidney donations.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Narrative methods for assessing "quality of life" in hand transplantation: five case studies with bioethical commentary.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Enhancing second-order empathy in medical practice by supplementing patients' narratives with certainties.BMC medical education · 2018Article
- Organ transplantation and meaning of life: the quest for self fulfilment.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2013Article
- The ethics of organ transplantation: how comprehensive the ethical framework should be?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Norway's living kidney donation-rate is among the highest in the world (36 per million). According to questionnaire-results, donors enjoy better than average health, presumably due to the strict medical criteria for being allowed to donate and life long medical follow up. However, in recent years international studies have cast doubt on the predominantly positive picture of donors and recipients, particularly regarding psychological aspects of transplantation surgery and donor evalutation. Findings in this study derive from anthropological fieldwork lasting 36 months at three university hospitals in the Oslo-basin. 18 end stage kidney disease patients and their potential donors were recruited opportunistically and interviewed (separately) in three or more semi-structured conversations during the evaluation process and after transplantation. 3 cases are discussed in detail. Notes were transcribed and analysed according to narrative theory. Focus was to explore the content of donors' and recipients' pre- and post-transplantation narratives and to examine whether these accounts warrant a need for more comprehensive psychological assessment than is current practice in Norway. Donor- and recipient-narratives are well suited as a tool to improve living kidney donation-decisions. The material indicates a need to offer psychological care to LKD-partners, before and after transplantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.