Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29332204›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2018

Supplementing living kidney transplantees' medical records with donor- and recipient-narratives.

Anne Hambro Alnæs

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anne Hambro AlnæsCentre for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. ahambro@online.no.

Funding

EkstraStiftelsen Helse og Rehabilitering 2007/2/0300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Norway provides total social welfare coverage for organ transplantations, including free immunosuppressive medication and prepaid life-long follow up for both recipients and donors. Despite these benefits the proportion of living kidney donors (LKD) has in recent years declined from around 40% (2011) of all kidney transplantations to 24% (2016). This study suggests harnessing patient- and donor-narratives as a tool for addressing the current fall in donation rates. The hospital records of 18 recipient/donor dyads were compared with patient and donor accounts elicited in semi-structured interviews. Narratives afford a pertinent supplement to the primarily biomedical and technical information stored in medical records. Even in condensed form, the messages embedded in narratives contribute to a 'thicker' understanding of the complexity of living kidney donation (LKD)-decisions. Narratives represent a source of education for referring-nephrologists wishing to deepen their evaluation skills and avoid making decisions based on insufficient insight into patients' and potential donors' values and life-situation. Recipients' and donors' unedited accounts of their motivations, worries, doubts and expectations afford a revealing and edifying supplement to the primarily biomedical and technical information stored in medical records. In narratives, the predicaments and dilemmas surrounding LKD become visible and debatable and can serve as support for future donors, recipients and the nephrologists responsible for evaluation-conclusions. Generating narratives raises a number of practical, epistemic and normative challenges.

Indexed as

Medical RecordsNarrationFamilyFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicKidney TransplantationLiving DonorsMaleNorwayQualitative ResearchRisk FactorsBioethicsDeterrentsDonorsMedical recordsNarrativesPreemptive kidney transplantation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.