ArticleJAMA network open2026
Patient Participation in Organ Transplant Selection Meetings: A Qualitative Study.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Organ transplant selection committee meetings determine patient eligibility for life-saving organs, yet their deliberations remain largely inaccessible to patients. Limited transparency contributes to patient-reported mistrust and disengagement. Patient engagement in these processes may improve understanding and trust, but its impact on deliberation, logistics, and patient-clinician relationships remains unclear. Objective: To examine perspectives of patients and clinicians regarding patient participation in transplant selection committee meetings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of patients and clinicians nationally between November 16, 2023, and April 21, 2025. Interviews were conducted via video or telephone. Transcripts were analyzed using iterative thematic analysis. Participant demographics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Key themes reflecting patient and clinician perspectives on patient engagement in transplant selection committee meetings, including perceived benefits, risks, and strategies to support safe and effective implementation. Results: Interviews were conducted with 41 participants (mean [SD] age, 48 [7] years; 22 [53.7%] male), including 19 patients (46.3%), 13 clinicians (31.7%), and 9 patient-clinicians (21.9%). Four interrelated themes emerged: (1) rebalancing power and autonomy, (2) process understanding as empowerment, (3) mutual vulnerability, and (4) navigating uncertainty. Across themes, participants emphasized that meaningful participation depends on addressing these interdependent challenges and proposed strategies, including structured roles, facilitated participation, meeting summaries, and standardized communication frameworks. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, participants expressed conditional support for patient engagement as a pathway to improve trust, transparency, and patient empowerment. Findings suggest that participation should be understood as a stepwise process requiring attention to power dynamics, shared understanding, and mutual vulnerability. Structured, patient-centered frameworks with appropriate safeguards are needed before implementation. Future studies should evaluate feasibility and the impact of participation models on decision-making and patient-clinician relationships.
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.