Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39715252›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Reading the family: A constructivist grounded theory on organ donation conversations.

Lissette Avilés

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Lissette AvilésNursing Studies Department, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0610-0665

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approaching families to discuss deceased organ donation authorisation is considered one of the central stages of the organ donation process. In many countries, specialist nurses lead the organ donation process, approach and support families. However, how these encounters occur is not yet fully understood. A constructivist grounded theory methodology was used to conceptualise the process of approaching families from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and families. Data collected included six months of observations across two large hospitals in Chile, documents, interviews and focus groups with 71 participants including healthcare professionals involved in the organ donation process, and bereaved families who were approached for organ donation conversations. The theory Reading the family was developed to explain the relational process of how nurse organ donor coordinators approach families to negotiate organ donation authorization. It explains the sophisticated and skilled process of accessing, assessing and managing family's emotions to negotiate organ donation authorization as a family unit. The theory has two dimensions, indirect and direct, which refers to when and how nurses read families emotions to lead organ donation conversations and support bereaved families' decision-making process. These dimensions critically depend on the clinicians set of beliefs and communication processes. Understanding the complexities of approaching families is essential for practice and policymaking, particularly when there is a trend towards individual decision-making instead of understanding organ donation as a family affair. Reading the family could be eventually applied in other contexts and situations that involve navigating difficult conversations, and therefore, further research is needed and suggested to assess the feasibility of its application.

Indexed as

FamilyGrounded TheoryTissue and Organ ProcurementAdultChileCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleTissue Donors

Identifiers

PMID39715252
PMCPMC11666057

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.