Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38643137›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

"I am in favour of organ donation, but I feel you should opt-in"-qualitative analysis of the #options 2020 survey free-text responses from NHS staff toward opt-out organ donation legislation in England.

Natalie L Clark, Dorothy Coe, Natasha Newell, Mark N A Jones, Matthew Robb, David Reaich, Caroline Wroe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Promoting and Supporting Positive Conversations and Knowledge Mobilisation About Organ Donation in NHS Staff: a Hashtag "#" Series of Projects.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Article
  2. Ethical, Psychological and Social Un/certainties in the Face of Deemed Consent for Organ Donation in England.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Natalie L ClarkSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, England, UK.
Dorothy CoeNewcastle-Upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, England, UK.
Natasha NewellCentre for Process Innovation, Sedgefield, County Durham, England, UK.
Mark N A JonesNHS Blood and Transplant, Bristol, England, UK.
Matthew RobbNHS Blood and Transplant, Bristol, England, UK.
David ReaichSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, England, UK.
Caroline WroeNewcastle-Upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, England, UK. caroline.wroe@nhs.net.

Funding

Northern Counties Research Fund 16.01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn May 2020, England moved to an opt-out organ donation system, meaning adults are presumed to be an organ donor unless within an excluded group or have opted-out. This change aims to improve organ donation rates following brain or circulatory death. Healthcare staff in the UK are supportive of organ donation, however, both healthcare staff and the public have raised concerns and ethical issues regarding the change. The #options survey was completed by NHS organisations with the aim of understanding awareness and support of the change. This paper analyses the free-text responses from the survey.

methodsThe #options survey was registered as a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) portfolio trial [IRAS 275992] 14 February 2020, and was completed between July and December 2020 across NHS organisations in the North-East and North Cumbria, and North Thames. The survey contained 16 questions of which three were free-text, covering reasons against, additional information required and family discussions. The responses to these questions were thematically analysed.

resultsThe #options survey received 5789 responses from NHS staff with 1404 individuals leaving 1657 free-text responses for analysis. The family discussion question elicited the largest number of responses (66%), followed by those against the legislation (19%), and those requiring more information (15%). Analysis revealed six main themes with 22 sub-themes.

conclusionsThe overall #options survey indicated NHS staff are supportive of the legislative change. Analysis of the free-text responses indicates that the views of the NHS staff who are against the change reflect the reasons, misconceptions, and misunderstandings of the public. Additional concerns included the rationale for the change, informed decision making, easy access to information and information regarding organ donation processes. Educational materials and interventions need to be developed for NHS staff to address the concepts of autonomy and consent, organ donation processes, and promote family conversations. Wider public awareness campaigns should continue to promote the positives and refute the negatives thus reducing misconceptions and misunderstandings.

trial registrationNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) [IRAS 275992].

Indexed as

State MedicineTissue and Organ ProcurementAdultDecision MakingEnglandHumansTissue DonorsLegislationNational Health ServiceOrgan donationQualitative

Identifiers

PMID38643137
PMCPMC11031982

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.