ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2015
Does Social Capital Explain Community-Level Differences in Organ Donor Designation?
Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organ donation: a cultural and religious vision. The Barcelona project.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Social capital, functional health status and quality of life among adults in rural Southwest Nigeria.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic Status and Quality of Life: An Assessment of the Mediating Effect of Social Capital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Relationship Between High Organ Donation Rates and COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Predictors of Deceased Organ Donation in the Pediatric Population.Pediatrics · 2021Article
- Evaluating Spatial Associations in Inpatient Deaths Between Organ Procurement Organizations.Transplantation direct · 2021Article
- Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, racial segregation, and organ donation across 5 states.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2021Article
- Is Prosocial Behavior Associated With Increased Registration for Deceased Organ Donation? A Cross-sectional Study of Ontario, Canada.Transplantation direct · 2020Article
- Concordance of Organ Donation and Other Altruistic Behaviors Among Twins.Progress in transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.) · 2019Article
- Are geographic differences in transplantation inherently wrong?Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
policy pointsThe growing shortage of life-saving organs has reached unprecedented levels, with more than 120,000 Americans waiting for them. Despite national attempts to increase organ donation and federal laws mandating the equitable allocation of organs, geographic disparities remain. A better understanding of the contextual determinants of organ donor designation, including social capital, may enhance efforts to increase organ donation by raising the probability of collective action and fostering norms of reciprocity and cooperation while increasing costs to defectors. Because community-level factors, including social capital, predict more than half the variation in donor designation, future interventions should tailor strategies to specific communities as the unit of intervention. CONTEXT: The growing shortage of organs has reached unprecedented levels. Despite national attempts to increase donation and federal laws mandating the equitable allocation of organs, their availability and waiting times vary significantly nationwide. Organ donor designation is a collective action problem in public health, in which the regional organ supply and average waiting times are determined by the willingness of individuals to be listed as organ donors. Social capital increases the probability of collective action by fostering norms of reciprocity and cooperation while increasing costs to defectors. We examine whether social capital and other community-level factors explain geographic variation in organ donor designation rates in Massachusetts.
methodsWe obtained a sample of 3,281,532 registered drivers in 2010 from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Registry of Motor Vehicles (MassDOT RMV). We then geocoded the registry data, matched them to 4,466 census blocks, and linked them to the 2010 US Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other sources to obtain community-level sociodemographic, social capital (residential segregation, voter registration and participation, residential mobility, violent-death rate), and religious characteristics. We used spatial modeling, including lagged variables to account for the effect of adjacent block groups, and multivariate regression analysis to examine the relationship of social capital and community-level characteristics with organ donor designation rates.
findingsBlock groups with higher levels of social capital, racial homogeneity, income, workforce participation, owner-occupied housing, native-born residents, and white residents had higher rates of organ donor designation (p < 0.001). These factors remained significant in the multivariate model, which explained more than half the geographic variance in organ donor designation (R(2) = 0.52).
conclusionsThe findings suggest that community-level factors, including social capital, predict more than half the variation in donor designation. Future interventions should target the community as the unit of intervention and should tailor messaging for areas with low social capital.
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.