SynthesisBMJ open2025
Barriers to conversations about deceased organ donation among adults living in the UK: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Organ Donation Motivators and Demotivators Among Families of Brain-Dead Patients in Southeast Iran: A Qualitative Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
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
objectivesTo explore the barriers to conversations about deceased organ donation among adults living in the UK.
designSystematic review with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDline via OVID, APA PsycInfo via EBSCO, Web of Science via Clarivate and Scopus via Elsevier, covering studies that were published between January 2006 and December 2023. Searches were conducted on 1 December 2023 and completed on 2 February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published between January 2006 and December 2023, focusing on barriers to organ donation conversations among adults in the UK. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included, emphasising cultural and generational factors. Non-English studies and those unrelated to the UK were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers using a standardised tool. Quality assessment was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, evaluating study bias. A narrative synthesis approach was used to integrate findings from heterogeneous studies.
results11 studies (6 qualitative, 5 quantitative) with a total of 4991 participants were included. Four main thematic barriers emerged: (1) jinx factor-cultural beliefs associating discussion of death with bad luck; (2) generational impact-younger people were more open but cautious of upsetting parents; (3) ethnic disparities in conversations-varied challenges across diverse backgrounds and (4) cues to action-media and personal experiences prompted conversations. Facilitators included culturally tailored communication and community engagement.
conclusionConversations about death and organ donation are often brief and hindered by cultural taboos surrounding death, generational differences in attitudes and the influence of family dynamics. Further research is needed to understand communication patterns better and to tailor interventions that encourage open discussions about organ donation across different ethnic groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022340315.
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.