Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31917815›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Exploring the impact of terminology differences in blood and organ donor decision making.

Stephen Whyte, Ho Fai Chan, Karin Hammarberg, Benno Torgler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Understanding the Reasons Why Men and Women Do Not Donate Gametes.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    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 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Stephen WhyteSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9464-1110
Ho Fai ChanSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7281-5212
Karin HammarbergSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5988-5865
Benno TorglerSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because the global shortage of blood and organ donors across all medical markets is a serious concern for health care provision, we aim in this study to better understand decisions (not) to participate in these two forms of medical donation, which can save or prolong another's life. Using unique responses from over 1,000 online survey respondents, we compare the reasons given for the donation decision given by blood and/or registered organ donors versus non-donors. To do so, we categorize responses based on five dimensions of language choice: egocentric (referring to self), social, moral, positively emotional, and negatively emotional. Our results reveal statistically significant differences between blood donors and non-donors in the use of all five categories. With respect to organ donation, we find statistically significant differences between donors and non-donors in the use of social, moral and positive emotional terms but not in the use of egocentric or negatively emotional justifications. Such results suggest that the 'gift of life' terminology used universally to market to potential blood and organ donors may only be relevant in the blood donation market and unlikely to incentivize or change organ donation behaviour.

Indexed as

Decision MakingTerminology as TopicBlood DonorsHumansMultivariate AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesTissue Donors

Identifiers

PMID31917815
PMCPMC6952186
OpenAlexW3000434903

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.