Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41200059›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

To give or not to give, and to whom?-These are the questions! Determinants of selective organ donation intentions.

Alexandra Cobzeanu, Cristian Opariuc-Dan, Ioan-Alex Merlici, Bogdan Mihail Cobzeanu, Ionut Tanase

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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

5 authors.

Alexandra CobzeanuDepartment of Education Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania.
Cristian Opariuc-DanFaculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, Ovidius University, Constanta, Romania.
Ioan-Alex MerliciDepartment of Education Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania.
Bogdan Mihail CobzeanuDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medical Bioengineering, "Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania.
Ionut TanaseDepartment of Stomatology II, Faculty of Dentistry, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study examined the psychological factors influencing intentions for Posthumous Organ Donation (POD). Specifically, we focused on beliefs associated with POD, perceived subjective and moral norms derived from the extended Theory of Planned Behavior, empathic concern, and a facet of utilitarianism, namely instrumental harm. We explored these variables in relation to participants' overall intention to donate organs, as well as their intention to donate in specific contexts: to a child and to an adult with disabilities. Methods: A total of 1,896 Romanian adults aged 18 to 80 participated in the study. Data were analyzed using a moderated structural equation modeling approach to assess the role of medical mistrust, disgust-related factors (Ick and Jynx), bodily integrity concerns, perceived benefits, norms, empathic concern, and instrumental harm in predicting POD intentions. Results: Medical mistrust, Ick, Jynx, and bodily integrity concerns had significant negative effects on POD intentions. In contrast, perceived benefits, as well as subjective and moral norms, positively predicted POD. Empathic concern did not significantly moderate POD intentions. However, instrumental harm was negatively associated with all forms of POD (general, to a child, and to an adult with disabilities). Participants reported the highest POD intentions when the recipient was a child with disabilities, and the lowest intentions for general POD. Discussion: The findings suggest that while normative beliefs and perceived benefits enhance willingness to engage in POD, concerns about bodily integrity, mistrust, and aversion responses hinder such intentions. The role of instrumental harm underscores the ethical complexities in organ donation decision-making. Context also matters, as donation to vulnerable recipients (e.g., children with disabilities) elicited the strongest support. These results highlight the importance of addressing mistrust and disgust-related barriers, while strengthening moral and normative frameworks, to promote organ donation.

Indexed as

empathymoral normsposthumous organ donationsubjective normsutilitarianism

Identifiers

PMID41200059
PMCPMC12585968

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.