Search

Objectives & backgroundAnonymous live organ donors or unspecified donors are individuals willing to be organ donors for any transplant recipient with whom they have no biological or antecedent emotional relationship. Despite excellent recipient outcomes and the potential to help address organ scarcity, controversy surrounds the unconditional act of gifting one's organs to an unrelated recipient. This qualitative systematic review provides insights into the first-hand experiences, motivations, and challenges that unspecified donors face.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science database for qualitative literature regarding unspecified living donors' motivations and experiences in liver and kidney transplantation. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to generate themes and supportive subthemes.Results12 studies were included. The four major themes were (i) motivations, (ii) perception of risks, (iii) donor support, and (iv) benefits of donation. Unspecified donors demonstrated a deep sense of social responsibility but tended to underestimate health risks in favour of benefits for recipients. Despite the lack of emotional support from family and friends, the decision to donate was a resolute personal decision for donors. Majority benefitted emotionally and did not express regret.ConclusionThis qualitative review bridges the gap in literature on unspecified living donor psychology and provides a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making matrix and experiences of donors.

ObjectiveThis study was conducted to better understand the pervasive gender barriers obstructing the progression of women in surgery by synthesising the perspectives of both female surgical trainees and surgeons.MethodsFive electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection, were searched for relevant articles. Following a full-text review by three authors, qualitative data was synthesized thematically according to the Thomas and Harden methodology and quality assessment was conducted by two authors reaching a consensus.ResultsFourteen articles were included, with unfavorable work environments, male-dominated culture and societal pressures being major themes. Females in surgery lacked support, faced harassment, and had unequal opportunities, which were often exacerbated by sex-blindness by their male counterparts. Mothers were especially affected, struggling to achieve a work-life balance while facing strong criticism. However, with increasing recognition of the unique professional traits of female surgeons, there is progress towards gender quality which requires continued and sustained efforts.ConclusionThis systematic review sheds light on the numerous gender barriers that continue to stand in the way of female surgeons despite progress towards gender equality over the years. As the global agenda towards equality progresses, this review serves as a call-to-action to increase collective effort towards gender inclusivity which will significantly improve future health outcomes.

ObjectiveTo understand racial bias in clinical settings from the perspectives of minority patients and healthcare providers to inspire changes in the way healthcare providers interact with their patients.MethodsArticles on racial bias were searched on Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science. Full text review and quality appraisal was conducted, before data was synthesized and analytically themed using the Thomas and Harden methodology.Results23 articles were included, involving 1,006 participants. From minority patients' perspectives, two themes were generated: 1) alienation of minorities due to racial supremacism and lack of empathy, resulting in inadequate medical treatment; 2) labelling of minority patients who were stereotyped as belonging to a lower socio-economic class and having negative behaviors. From providers' perspectives, one theme recurred: the perpetuation of racial fault lines by providers. However, some patients and providers denied racism in the healthcare setting.ConclusionImplicit racial bias is pervasive and manifests in patient-provider interactions, exacerbating health disparities in minorities. Beyond targeted anti-racism measures in healthcare settings, wider national measures to reduce housing, education and income inequality may mitigate racism in healthcare and improve minority patient care.