Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39731096›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024

Family concerns in organ donor conversations: a qualitative embedded multiple-case study.

Sanne P C van Oosterhout, Anneke G van der Niet, Wilson F Abdo, Marianne Boenink, Jelle L P van Gurp, Gert Olthuis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Sanne P C van OosterhoutEthics of Healthcare Group, Department of IQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6095-6459
Anneke G van der NietEthics of Healthcare Group, Department of IQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0883-8636
Wilson F AbdoDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5783-8643
Marianne BoeninkEthics of Healthcare Group, Department of IQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7017-0043
Jelle L P van GurpEthics of Healthcare Group, Department of IQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9904-2571
Gert OlthuisEthics of Healthcare Group, Department of IQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Gert.Olthuis@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1055-3816

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundListening and responding to family concerns in organ and tissue donation is generally considered important, but has never been researched in real time. We aimed to explore in real time, (a) which family concerns emerge in the donation process, (b) how these concerns manifest during and after the donor conversation, and (c) how clinicians respond to the concerns during the donor conversation.

methodsA qualitative embedded multiple-case study in eight Dutch hospitals was conducted. Thematic analysis was performed based on audio recordings and direct observations of 29 donor conversations and interviews with the family members involved (n = 24).

resultsConcerns clustered around six topics: 1) Life-event of a relative's death, 2) Dying well, 3) Tensions and fears about donation, 4) Experiences of time, 5) Procedural clarity, and 6) Involving (non-)present family. Most concerns occurred in topics 1 and 2. Clinicians mostly responded to concerns by providing information or immediate solutions, while sometimes acknowledgement sufficed. When concerns were highly charged with emotion, the clinicians' responses were less frequently attuned to families' needs. Cues of less clearly articulated concerns gained less follow-up. Then, concerns often remained or reappeared.

conclusionThe identified concerns and the distinction between clearly and less clearly articulated concerns may prove valuable for clinicians to improve family support. We advise clinicians to engage with a curious, probing attitude to enhance the dialogue around concerns, elaborate on less clearly articulated concerns and identify the informational needs of the family.

Indexed as

FamilyQualitative ResearchTissue DonorsAdultAgedCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsProfessional-Family RelationsTissue and Organ ProcurementClinical ethicsCommunicationIntensive care unitOrgan donationQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID39731096
PMCPMC11673370

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.