ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Allocating a scarce medical resource: liver transplant and lay individuals' patient prioritisation.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is much debate on how scarce medical resources such as transplant organs should be allocated: in the UK, the NHS uses the principles of sickest first, prognosis and waiting list time - but not age [1]. Furthermore, it has recently been reported that in the UK younger patients tend to wait much longer than older patients for a liver transplant. The current study investigates younger and older lay people's preferences for the allocation of liver transplants using four criteria,the patient's age, time spent on the waiting list, pre-transplant life expectancy and post-transplant life expectancy.
methodsIn an online study, lay participants (N = 400) rated 16 hypothetical patients in terms of priority to receive an available donor liver, using only information on patients' age, time spent on the waiting list, pre-transplant life expectancy and post-transplant life expectancy. The relative 'importance' of the criteria in making decisions was indexed using a standardised effect size measure (generalised eta-squared).
resultsPre-transplant life expectancy ('sickest first') was associated with the largest effect size, followed by post-transplant life expectancy ('prognosis'), then age ('youngest first') and finally waiting list ('first-come, first served'). In addition, participants assigned higher priority ratings to young patients, patients who had been on the waiting list for a long time, patients with a low pre-transplant life expectancy, and patients with a high post-transplant life expectancy. Both age groups prioritised younger over older patients, but younger participants prioritised younger over older patients to a greater extent than did older participants. There was no evidence for in-group bias. Additionally, younger participants showed a stronger prioritisation of patients with a long waiting time and patients with a low pre-transplant life expectancy compared to older participants.
conclusionsLay individuals were able to effectively use the four allocation principles in a practical scenario to assign priority ratings to potential liver transplant recipients. The findings are consistent with previous findings that lay individuals see 'sickest first' (pre-transplant life expectancy in this case) as being the most important criterion for the allocation of a scarce medical resource. However, the findings also reveal that both younger and older individuals support the notion that 'youngest first' is also an important criterion, something not currently reflected in the NHS allocation policy.
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.