ArticleBMC nephrology2012
Who should be prioritized for renal transplantation?: Analysis of key stakeholder preferences using discrete choice experiments.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Patient Preferences for the Management of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Kidney Transplantation: a Discrete Choice Experiment.Kidney international reports · 2023Article
- Adding epitope compatibility to deceased donor kidney allocation criteria: recommendations from a pan-Canadian online public deliberation.BMC nephrology · 2023Article
- Article
- A revealed preference analysis to develop composite scores approximating lung allocation policy in the U.S.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Article
- Renal transplant patients' preference for the supply and delivery of immunosuppressants in Wales: a discrete choice experiment.BMC nephrology · 2017Article
- Patient preferences, knowledge and beliefs about kidney allocation: qualitative findings from the UK-wide ATTOM programme.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Developing a framework for evaluating kidney transplantation candidacy in children with multiple comorbidities.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2015Review
- Providers' View on the First Kidney Transplantation Center in Ethiopia: Experience From Past to Present.Health services research and managerial epidemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolicies for allocating deceased donor kidneys have recently shifted from allocation based on Human Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) tissue matching in the UK and USA. Newer allocation algorithms incorporate waiting time as a primary factor, and in the UK, young adults are also favoured. However, there is little contemporary UK research on the views of stakeholders in the transplant process to inform future allocation policy. This research project aimed to address this issue.
methodsDiscrete Choice Experiment (DCE) questionnaires were used to establish priorities for kidney transplantation among different stakeholder groups in the UK. Questionnaires were targeted at patients, carers, donors / relatives of deceased donors, and healthcare professionals. Attributes considered included: waiting time; donor-recipient HLA match; whether a recipient had dependents; diseases affecting life expectancy; and diseases affecting quality of life.
resultsResponses were obtained from 908 patients (including 98 ethnic minorities); 41 carers; 48 donors / relatives of deceased donors; and 113 healthcare professionals. The patient group demonstrated statistically different preferences for every attribute (i.e. significantly different from zero) so implying that changes in given attributes affected preferences, except when prioritizing those with no rather than moderate diseases affecting quality of life. The attributes valued highly related to waiting time, tissue match, prioritizing those with dependents, and prioritizing those with moderate rather than severe diseases affecting life expectancy. Some preferences differed between healthcare professionals and patients, and ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority patients. Only non-ethnic minority patients and healthcare professionals clearly prioritized those with better tissue matches.
conclusionsOur econometric results are broadly supportive of the 2006 shift in UK transplant policy which emphasized prioritizing the young and long waiters. However, our findings suggest the need for a further review in the light of observed differences in preferences amongst ethnic minorities, and also because those with dependents may be a further priority.
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.