Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30820923›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of behavioral medicine2019

What Determines Support for Donor Registration Systems? The Influence of Sociopolitical Viewpoint, Attitudes Toward Organ Donation, and Patients' Need.

Anton J M Dijker, Erica de Bakker, Stanneke C Bensen, Nanne K de Vries

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of behavioral medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for increasing solid organ donor registration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Anton J M DijkerFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. a.dijker@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3320-1151
Erica de BakkerFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stanneke C BensenFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nanne K de VriesFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn forming opinions about donor registration systems such as opt-in versus opt-out, the sociopolitical implications of these systems may be confounded with attitudes toward organ donation itself, causing people to talk at cross purposes. The goal of the present research was to examine the interactive effects of sociopolitical viewpoint, attitude toward donation (as evidenced by current registration status in study 1 and registration intention of unregistered individuals in study 2), and patients' need for organs on people's support for a particular system.

methodIn study 1, we randomly assigned registered donors, registered nondonors, and nonregistered individuals to one of three sociopolitically inspired solutions to reducing the organ shortage, distinguishing between solutions based on autonomy, coercion by the state, and reciprocity, respectively. In study 2, we concentrated specifically on young and unregistered people in order to examine how prior donation intentions or indecision with respect to donor registration affect responses to the three different sociopolitical viewpoints. In both studies, we also manipulated salience of patients' need.

resultsRegistered donors in study 1 and unregistered individuals with donation intention in study 2 (high in sympathy, low in anxiety) were highly and equally supportive of a solution based on autonomy and coercion. In contrast, registered nondonors in study 1 and unregistered and undecided individuals in study 2 (lower in sympathy, higher in anxiety) were less supportive of a solution based on coercion than autonomy. Study 2 also found that, for undecided individuals, a more salient need state was associated with a drop in anxiety and stronger support for coercion. Results for a system based on reciprocity were more difficult to interpret.

conclusionIndividuals most concerned with the need of patients waiting for an organ are relatively indifferent with respect to the sociopolitical implications of a registration system, while those strongly objecting to a coercive role for the state express reservations against organ donation itself. In order to help people to form balanced opinions about organ donation systems, we recommend to make the prosocial and sociopolitical aspects equally salient and deserving of debate.

Indexed as

Tissue and Organ ProcurementAdultAttitudeFemaleHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedMotivationRegistriesTissue DonorsAttitudesAutonomyBeliefsCoercionDonor registration systemOpt-in versus opt-outPosthumous organ donationReciprocitySociopolitical viewpoints

Identifiers

PMID30820923
PMCPMC6440942
OpenAlexW2918776839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.