ArticleBMJ open2018
Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice.The patient · 2019Pooled it
- Cancer survivor preferences for breast cancer follow-up care: a discrete choice experiment.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Understanding women's preferences for long-acting reversible contraceptives in Gondar, Ethiopia: a discrete choice experiment.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Preferences of healthcare workers for security personnel to prevent occupational violence: A discrete choice experiment.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Unraveling the impact of abdominal arterial calcifications on kidney transplant waitlist mortality through ensemble machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Setting Organ Allocation Priorities: A Discrete Choice Experiment with German Patients and Their Relatives.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Israeli Medical Experts' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- [Allocating scarce medical resources to COVID-19 patients. Results of a factorial survey].Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung · 2022Article
- How Should Deceased Donor Organs Be Allocated? The Patient's Perspective Derived from Semi-Structured Interviews.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- A revealed preference analysis to develop composite scores approximating lung allocation policy in the U.S.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Public Preferences for Exit Strategies From COVID-19 Lockdown in Germany-A Discrete Choice Experiment.International journal of public health · 2021Article
- Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: Focus group discussions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Patient Perspectives on the Use of Frailty, Cognitive Function, and Age in Kidney Transplant Evaluation.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOrgan transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with severe organ failure. Nevertheless, donor organs are a scarce resource resulting in a large mismatch between supply and demand. Therefore, priority-setting leads to the dilemma of how these scarce organs should be allocated and who should be considered eligible to receive a suitable organ. In order to improve the supply-demand mismatch in transplantation medicine, this study explores preferences of different stakeholders (general public, medical professionals and patients) for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation in Germany. The aims are (1) to determine criteria and preferences, which are relevant for the allocation of scarce donor organs and (2) to compare the results between the three target groups to derive strategies for health policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We outline the study protocol for discrete choice experiments, where respondents are presented with different choices including attributes with varied attribute levels. They were asked to choose between these choice sets. First, systematic reviews will be conducted to identify the state of art. Subsequently, focus group discussions with the public and patients as well as expert interviews with medical professionals will follow to establish the attributes that are going to be included in the experiments and to verify the results of the systematic reviews. Using this qualitative exploratory work, discrete choice studies will be designed to quantitatively assess preferences. We will use a D-efficient fractional factorial design to survey a total sample of 600 respondents according to the public, medical professionals and patients each. Multinomial conditional logit model and latent class model will be analysed to estimate the final results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received Ethics Approval from the Hannover Medical School Human Ethics Committee (Vote number: 7921_BO_K_2018). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, workshops with stakeholders and peer-reviewed journal articles.
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.