Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32189453›Full record

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.

Carina Oedingen, Tim Bartling, Marie-Luise Dierks, Axel C Mühlbacher, Harald Schrem, Christian Krauth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 · 2020
    Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Carina OedingenInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5070-284X
Tim BartlingInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Marie-Luise DierksInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Axel C MühlbacherInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany.
Harald SchremDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Christian KrauthInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEDuke University · USMedical University of Graz · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Social JusticeTissue and Organ ProcurementFocus GroupsHumansResearch DesignResource Allocationattitudesdistributive justicefocus group discussionorgan allocationorgan transplantationpreferencespublic perspective

Identifiers

PMID32189453
PMCPMC7321724
OpenAlexW3011929133

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.