Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36999164›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023

Setting Organ Allocation Priorities: A Discrete Choice Experiment with German Patients and Their Relatives.

Tim Bartling, Carina Oedingen, Harald Schrem, Thomas Kohlmann, Christian Krauth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Tim BartlingHannover Medical School, Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2867-8396
Carina OedingenHannover Medical School, Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5070-284X
Harald SchremCenter for Health Economics Research Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Thomas KohlmannDepartment of Methods of Community Medicine, Institute for Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Christian KrauthHannover Medical School, Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Organ transplantation systems benefit from guidelines that are harmonious with the preferences of the people involved. Discrete choice experiments are useful tools for eliciting preferences. Patients and Methods: This study evaluated the preferences of patients and their relatives (n=285) to identify their priorities in organ allocation using a discrete choice experiment. In eight hypothetical allocation decisions, the participants were asked to select the candidate they considered the most suitable The candidates differed in years of life gained after transplantation, quality of life after transplantation, waiting time until transplantation, age, compliance and social support. Results: The most important aspects for setting priority in organ allocation were lack of compliance (β= -2.5, p<0.001) and good quality of life after transplantation (β = +1.4, p<0.001). The lack of social support (ß = -0.8, p<0.05) and the more years of life gained after transplantation (β = +0.5, p<0.001) had less but still a significant amount of influence on this decision, while the waiting list was not considered significantly important (β = 0.1, p>0.05). The comparison of the different relations to transplantation showed that life years gained after transplantation was of high relevance to posttransplant patients (+10 years: β = +0.709, p<0.001 / +15 years: β = +0.700, p<0.001) and of no importance to waitlisted patients (+10 years: β = +0.345, p>0.05 / + 15 years: β = +0.173, p>0.05) and relatives (+ 10 years: β = +0.063, p>0.05 / +15 years: β = +0.304, p>0.05). Conclusion: This study provides useful insights into the unique perspective of patients and their relatives on priority-setting in the allocation of donor organs that should be reflected in improved donor organ allocation rules.

Indexed as

discrete choice experimentethicshealth prioritieshealth resourcesorgan transplantationpatient involvementresource allocation

Identifiers

PMID36999164
PMCPMC10044066

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.