Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34518244›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Family refusal of eye tissue donation from potential solid organ donors: a retrospective analysis of summary and free-text data from the UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant Services (NHS-BT) National Referral Centre (1 April 2014 to 31 March 2017).

Mike Bracher, Banyana C Madi-Segwagwe, Emma Winstanley, Helen Gillan, Tracy Long-Sutehall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Socio-economic factors are the main factors affecting organ donation.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023
    Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Mike BracherSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK m.j.bracher@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5861-2657
Banyana C Madi-SegwagweSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Emma WinstanleyNational Health Service Blood and Transplant Services-Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, Liverpool, UK.
Helen GillanNational Health Service Blood and Transplant Services-Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, Liverpool, UK.
Tracy Long-SutehallSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLong-standing undersupply of eye tissue exists both in the UK and globally, and the UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant Service (NHSBT) has called for further research exploring barriers to eye donation. This study aims to: (1) describe reported reasons for non-donation of eye tissue from solid organ donors in the UK between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2017 and (2) discuss these findings with respect to existing theories relating to non-donation of eyes by family members.

designSecondary analysis of a national primary data set of recorded reasons for non-donation of eyes from 2790 potential solid organ donors. Data analysis including descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis of free-text data for 126 recorded cases of family decline of eye donation.

settingNational data set covering solid organ donation (secondary care).

participants2790 potential organ donors were assessed for eye donation eligibility between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2017.

resultsReasons for non-retrieval of eyes were recorded as: family wishes (n=1339, 48% of total cases); medical reasons (n=841, 30%); deceased wishes (n=180, 7%). In >50% of recorded cases, reasons for non-donation were based on family's knowledge of the deceased wishes, their perception of the deceased wishes and specific concerns regarding processes or effects of eye donation (for the deceased body). Findings are discussed with respect to the existing theoretical perspectives.

conclusionEye donation involves distinct psychological and sociocultural factors for families and HCPs that have not been fully explored in research or integrated into service design. We propose areas for future research and service development including potential of only retrieving corneal discs as opposed to full eyes to reduce disfigurement concerns; public education regarding donation processes; exploration of how request processes potentially influence acceptance of eye donation; procedures for assessment of familial responses to information provided during consent conversations.

Indexed as

State MedicineTissue and Organ ProcurementCorneaFamilyHumansReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesTissue DonorsUnited Kingdomcorneal and external diseasesqualitative researchtransplant pathology

Identifiers

PMID34518244
PMCPMC8438759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.