Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30979026›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

Theory Content, Question-Behavior Effects, or Form of Delivery Effects for Intention to Become an Organ Donor? Two Randomized Trials.

Frank Doyle, Karen Morgan, Mary Mathew, Princy Palatty, Prashanti Kamat, Sally Doherty, Jody Quigley, Josh Henderson, Ronan O'Carroll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

9 authors.

Frank DoyleDepartment of Health Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, D02 DH60, Ireland. fdoyle4@rcsi.ie.
Karen MorganPerdana University-Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland School of Medicine, Selangor, 43400 Serdang, Malaysia. karenmorgan@perdanauniversity.edu.my.
Mary MathewDepartment of Pathology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, 576104 Manipal, India. mary.mathew@manipal.edu.
Princy PalattyDepartment of Pharmacology, Father Muller Medical College, Mangalore, Mangalore 575002, Karnataka, India. drprincylouispalatty@gmail.com.
Prashanti KamatDepartment of Pathology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, 576104 Manipal, India. kamat.prashanti@gmail.com.
Sally DohertyRCSI Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain, Adliya, P.O. Box 15503, Bahrain. sdoherty@rcsi-mub.com.
Jody QuigleyDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. jody.quigley@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Josh HendersonDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. jhendy10@hotmail.co.uk.
Ronan O'CarrollDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. ronan.ocarroll@stir.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eliciting different attitudes with survey questionnaires may impact on intention to donate organs. Previous research used varying numbers of questionnaire items, or different modes of intervention delivery, when comparing groups. We aimed to determine whether intention to donate organs differed among groups exposed to different theoretical content, but similar questionnaire length, in different countries. We tested the effect of excluding affective attitudinal items on intention to donate, using constant item numbers in two modes of intervention delivery. Study 1: A multi-country, interviewer-led, cross-sectional randomized trial recruited 1007 participants, who completed questionnaires as per group assignment: including all affective attitude items, affective attitude items replaced, negatively-worded affective attitude items replaced. Study 2 recruited a UK-representative, cross-sectional sample of 616 participants using an online methodology, randomly assigned to the same conditions. Multilevel models assessed effects of group membership on outcomes: intention to donate (primary), taking a donor card, following a web-link (secondary). In study 1, intention to donate did not differ among groups. Study 2 found a small, significantly higher intention to donate in the negatively-worded affective attitudes replaced group. Combining data yielded no group differences. No differences were seen for secondary outcomes. Ancillary analyses suggest significant interviewer effects. Contrary to previous research, theoretical content may be less relevant than number or valence of questionnaire items, or form of intervention delivery, for increasing intention to donate organs.

Indexed as

AttitudeIntentionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesTissue Donorsaffective attitudesorgan donationpsychological theorypublic healthquestion-behavior effectrandomized trial

Identifiers

PMID30979026
PMCPMC6479820

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.