ArticleBMC health services research2025
Perceptions and experiences of healthcare professionals of implementing the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act in England during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2025Article
- Qualitative Content and Discourse Analysis Comparing the Current Consent Systems for Deceased Organ Donation in Spain and England.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIn May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, England implemented a 'soft' opt-out system of consent to deceased organ donation. As part of a wider evaluation, this analysis focused on the perceptions of health care professionals, specifically their experiences of implementation.
methodsMixed-methods study informed by Normalisation Process Theory, based on two national surveys of health care professionals and interviews, observations and document analysis, across two case study sites. Routine NHS Blood and Transplant's audit data provided context.
findings70 interviews with 59 staff and 244 first and 738 second surveys. COVID-19 affected every aspect of implementation. Although supportive in principle, many staff were unconvinced that legislative changes alone would increase consent rates. Many staff were redeployed or left their jobs. As a result, staff were not able to work collectively as intended for implementation. Staff received routine donor audit data suggesting the law was yet to make a difference to consent rates, reducing their enthusiasm and commitment.
conclusionsImplementation could have been more impactful if delayed. The National Health Service needs to reprioritise organ donation and relaunch the implementation plan in the post-pandemic period, though it is unlikely the changes will bring about a significant increase in consent rates.
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.