ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2024
Explanation of the sociological patterns of organ donation: An analytical study.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2024. 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.
- Too uncertain to consent, too supportive to refuse: the sociocultural dilemma of hesitant organ donors in Kazakhstan.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many countries, the consent of family members is required for organ donation from brain-dead patients who are potential candidates for organ donation. In this regard, knowing the factors affecting family members' decision for organ donation can help improve the conditions. This qualitative study aimed to identify the factors affecting family members' decision-making regarding donation of brain-dead patients' organs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis research applied qualitative research by focusing on the content analysis approach. The study started from April 2021 in Al-Zahra Hospital in Isfahan and Ayatollah Kashani in Shahrekord and continued until data saturation was reached (September 1401). Participants were assigned to one of three groups: brain-dead patients' family members who consented to organ donation, brain-dead patients' family members who declined to consent to organ donation, and people involved in the organ donation process. The sample was selected using the purposive sampling method. The data were collected using unstructured interviews and the field survey method. In this study, a qualitative content analysis with a contractual approach was used to analyze the data.
resultsThe analysis of the collected data using different methods yielded 11 main categories, including 1) unresponsive healthcare system, 2) inadequate support from government systems, 3) weakness of social work organizations, 4) fear of being stigmatized, 5) cultural values, 6) symbolization, 7) perpetuation and the society's attitude, 8) development of personality system and generalism, 9) human values, 10) spiritual maturity, and 11) belief-religious challenges, leading finally to three themes, including 1) structural and functional weakness of systems, 2) sociocultural factors, and 3) worldview.
conclusionThe findings of the present research were able to identify the roots and social factors affecting Iranian families' decisions regarding the consent or nonconsent of brain-dead patient members. Health system administrators and organ donation committees in medical sciences universities in Iran can try to solve the shortage of donated organs by using the specific social aspects introduced in this study. It is also recommended to design effective models for more satisfaction of family members for brain death patient organ donation in healthcare based on the underlying concepts of this study.
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.