ArticleKidney international reports2020
A Randomized Trial of Theory-Informed Appeals for Organ Donor Registration Using Internet Advertisements.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What is said about #donateliver or #liverdonor? Reflexive thematic analysis of Twitter (X) posts from 2012 to 2022.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany people do not register as organ donors. We developed 5 different brief appeals for organ donation that were disseminated online. The content was informed by theories of behavior change and studies of the specific cognitive barriers to organ donor registration.
methodsOne message was a persuasive narrative about a transplant recipient. Another message promoted the idea that organ donor registration is a social norm. The knowledge-based message communicated that 1 donor could improve the lives of 50 people. The message on reciprocity offered a free organ donation wristband, whether or not the participant registered as a donor. The message on control simply encouraged organ donation. Using Google AdWords, the messages were deployed randomly as banners of different sizes on diverse online sites and carried a link to an organ donor registration site. We measured clicks, page visits, and organ donor registrations.
resultsThere were 5,156,048 impressions and 25,001 total clicks, a click-through rate of 0.49%. The messages on control and reciprocity both had the highest click-through rates of 0.51%. A total of 152 unique individuals requested wristbands and there were 52 total organ donor registration events. The message on reciprocity had the highest number of organ donor registrations (n = 18).
conclusionOnline organ donation messages rapidly generated substantial attention through clicks, but no message led to a meaningful number of organ donor registrations. Future research may focus on effectively capturing the attention of viewers through social networks or other convenient online venues with less competition for attention than Internet banners.
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.