ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020
Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: Focus group discussions.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. 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, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allocating a scarce medical resource: liver transplant and lay individuals' patient prioritisation.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Article
- Am I my students' nurse? Reflections on the nursing ethics of nursing education.Nursing ethics · 2024Article
- Adding epitope compatibility to deceased donor kidney allocation criteria: recommendations from a pan-Canadian online public deliberation.BMC nephrology · 2023Article
- Public values and guiding principles for implementing epitope compatibility in kidney transplantation allocation criteria: results from a Canadian online public deliberation.BMC public health · 2023Article
- 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
- How Should Deceased Donor Organs Be Allocated? The Patient's Perspective Derived from Semi-Structured Interviews.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Save the Children: The Ethical Argument for Preferential Priority to Minors in Deceased Donor Liver Allocation.Clinical liver disease · 2021Review
- 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeceased donor organs are scarce resources because of a large supply-and-demand mismatch. This scarcity leads to an ethical dilemma, forcing priority-setting of how these organs should be allocated and whom to leave behind.
objectiveTo explore public preferences for the allocation of donor organs in regard to ethical aspects of distributive justice.
methodsFocus groups were facilitated between November and December 2018 at Hannover Medical School. Participants were recruited locally. Transcripts were assessed with content analysis using the deductive framework method. All identified and discussed criteria were grouped according to the principles of distributive justice and reported following the COREQ statement.
resultsSix focus groups with 31 participants were conducted. Overall, no group made a final decision of how to allocate donor organ; however, we observed that not only a single criterion/principle but rather a combination of criteria/principles is relevant. Therefore, the public wants to allocate organs to save as many lives as possible by both maximizing success for and also giving priority to urgent patients considering the best compatibility. Age, waiting time, reciprocity and healthy lifestyles should be used as additional criteria, while sex, financial status and family responsibility should not, based on aspects of equality.
conclusionsAll participants recognized the dilemma that prioritizing one patient might cause another one to die. They discussed mainly the unclear trade-offs between effectiveness/benefit and medical urgency and did not establish an agreement about their importance. The results suggest a need of preference studies to elucidate public preferences in organ allocation.
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.