Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice

Mapping trust relationships in organ donation and transplantation: a conceptual model

The organ donation and transplantation (ODT) system heavily relies on the willingness of individuals to donate their organs. While it is widely believed that public trust plays a crucial role in shaping donation rates, the empirical support for this assumption remains limited. In order to bridge this knowledge gap, this article takes a foundational approach by elucidating the concept of trust within the context of ODT. By examining the stakeholders involved, identifying influential factors, and mapping the intricate trust relationships among trustors, trustees, and objects of trust, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of trust dynamics in ODT. We employ maps and graphs to illustrate the functioning of these trust relationships, enabling a visual representation of the complex interactions within the ODT system. Through this conceptual groundwork, we pave the way for future empirical research to investigate the link between trust and organ donation rates, informed by a clarified understanding of trust in ODT. This study can also provide valuable insights to inform interventions and policies aimed at enhancing organ donation rates.

Adding epitope compatibility to deceased donor kidney allocation criteria: recommendations from a pan-Canadian online public deliberation

BACKGROUND

The widening supply-demand imbalance for kidneys necessitates finding ways to reduce rejection and improve transplant outcomes. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) epitope compatibility between donor and recipient may minimize premature graft loss and prolong survival, but incorporating this strategy to deceased donor allocation criteria prioritizes transplant outcomes over wait times. An online public deliberation was held to identify acceptable trade-offs when implementing epitope compatibility to guide Canadian policymakers and health professionals in deciding how best to allocate kidneys fairly.

METHODS

Invitations were mailed to 35,000 randomly-selected Canadian households, with over-sampling of rural/remote locations. Participants were selected for socio-demographic diversity and geographic representation. Five two-hour online sessions were held from November-December 2021. Participants received an information booklet and heard from expert speakers prior to deliberating on how to fairly implement epitope compatibility for transplant candidates and governance issues. Participants collectively generated and voted on recommendations. In the final session, kidney donation and allocation policymakers engaged with participants. Sessions were recorded and transcribed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two individuals participated and generated nine recommendations. There was consensus on adding epitope compatibility to the existing deceased donor kidney allocation criteria. However, participants recommended including safeguards/flexibility around this (e.g., mitigating declining health). They called for a transition period to epitope compatibility, including an ongoing comprehensive public education program. Participants unanimously recommended regular monitoring and public sharing of epitope-based transplant outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants supported adding epitope compatibility to kidney allocation criteria, but advised safeguards and flexibility around implementation. These recommendations provide guidance to policymakers about incorporating epitope-based deceased donor allocation criteria.

Toward future triage regulations: Investigating preferred allocation principles of the German public

BACKGROUND

When intensive care capacity is limited, triage may be required. Given that the German government started working on new triage legislation in 2022, the present study investigated the German public's preferences for intensive care allocation in two situations: ex-ante triage (where multiple patients compete for available resources) and ex-post triage (where admitting a new patient to intensive care means withdrawing treatment from another because ICU resources are depleted).

METHOD

In an online experiment, N=994 participants were presented with four fictitious patients who differed in age and pre- and post-treatment chance of survival. In a series of pairwise comparisons, participants were asked to select one patient for treatment or to opt for random selection. Ex-ante and ex-post triage situations were varied between participants and preferred allocation strategies were inferred from their decisions.

RESULTS

On average, participants prioritized better post-treatment prognosis ahead of younger age or treatment benefit. Many participants rejected random allocation (on the flip of a coin) or prioritization by worse pre-treatment prognosis. Preferences were similar for ex-ante and ex-post situations.

DISCUSSION

Although there may be good reasons for deviating from laypeople's preference for utilitarian allocation, the results can help to design future triage policies and accompanying communication strategies.

Ethics of allocation of donor organs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is no widely accepted single ethical principle for the fair allocation of scarce donor organs for transplantation. Although most allocation systems use combinations of allocation principles, there is a particular tension between 'prioritizing the worst-off' and 'maximizing total benefits'. It is often suggested that empirical research on public preferences should help solve the dilemma between equity and efficiency in allocation policy-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review shows that the evidence on public preferences for allocation principles is limited, and that the normative role of public preferences in donor organ allocation policy making is unclear. The review seeks to clarify the ethical dilemma to the transplant community, and draws attention to recent attempts at balancing and rank-ordering of allocation principles.

SUMMARY

This review suggests that policy makers should make explicit the relative weights attributed to equity and efficiency considerations in allocation policies, and monitor the effects of policy changes on important ethics outcomes, including equitable access among patient groups. Also, it draws attention to wider justice issues associated not with the distribution of donor organs among patients on waiting lists, but with barriers in referral for transplant evaluation and disparities among patient groups in access to waiting lists.

Public values and guiding principles for implementing epitope compatibility in kidney transplantation allocation criteria: results from a Canadian online public deliberation

BACKGROUND

Epitope compatibility in deceased donor kidney allocation is an emerging area of precision medicine (PM), seeking to improve compatibility between donor kidneys to transplant candidates in the hope of avoiding kidney rejection. Though the potential benefits of using epitope compatibility are promising, the implied modification of deceased organ allocation criteria requires consideration of significant clinical and ethical trade-offs. As a matter of public policy, these trade-offs should consider public values and preferences. We invited members of the Canadian public to participate in a deliberation about epitope compatibility in deceased donor kidney transplantation; to identify what is important to them and to provide recommendations to policymakers.

METHODS

An online public deliberation was conducted with members of the Canadian public, in which participants were asked to construct recommendations for policymakers regarding the introduction of epitope compatibility to kidney allocation criteria. In the present paper, a qualitative analysis was conducted to identify the values reflected in participants' recommendations. All virtual sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants constructed nine recommendations regarding the adoption of epitope compatibility into deceased donor kidney allocation. Five values were identified that drove participants' recommendations: Health Maximization, Protection/Mitigation of Negative Impacts, Fairness, Science/Evidence-based Healthcare, and Responsibility to Maintain Trust. Conflicts between these values were discussed in terms of operational principles that were required for epitope compatibility to be implemented in an acceptable manner: the needs for Flexibility, Accountability, Transparent Communication and a Transition Plan. All nine recommendations were informed by these four principles. Participant deliberations were often dominated by the conflict between Health Maximization and Fairness or Protection/Mitigation of Negative Impacts, which was discussed as the need for Flexibility. Two additional values (Efficient Use of Resources and Logic/Rationality) were also discussed and were reasons for some participants voting against some recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Public recommendations indicate support for using epitope compatibility in deceased donor kidney allocation. A flexible approach to organ allocation decision-making may allow for the balancing of Health Maximization against maintaining Fairness and Mitigating Negative Impacts. Flexibility is particularly important in the context of epitope compatibility and other PM initiatives where evidence is still emerging.

Strategic and principled approach to the ethical challenges of epilepsy monitoring unit triage

Electroencephalographic monitoring provides critical diagnostic and management information about patients with epilepsy and seizure mimics. Admission to an epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) is the gold standard for such monitoring in major medical facilities worldwide. In many countries, access can be challenged by limited resources compared to need. Today, triaging admission to such units is generally approached by unwritten protocols that vary by institution. In the absence of explicit guidance, decisions can be ethically taxing and are easy to challenge. In an effort to address this gap, we propose a two-component approach to EMU triage that takes into account the unique landscape of epilepsy monitoring informed by triage literature from other areas of medicine. Through the strategic component, we focus on the EMU wait list management infrastructure at the institutional level. Through the principled component, we apply a combination of the ethical principles of prioritarianism, utilitarianism and justice to triage; and we use individual case examples to illustrate how they apply. The effective implementation of this approach to specific epilepsy centres will need to be customised to the nuances of different settings, including diverse practice patterns, patient populations and constraints on resource distribution, but the conceptual consolidation of its components can alleviate some of the pressures imposed by the complex decisions involved in EMU triage.

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.

RESULTS

From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.

CONCLUSION

While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.

Patient Perspectives on the Use of Frailty, Cognitive Function, and Age in Kidney Transplant Evaluation

BACKGROUND

The allocation of scarce deceased donor kidneys is a complex process. Transplant providers are increasingly relying on constructs such as frailty and cognitive function to guide kidney transplant (KT) candidate selection. Patient views of the ethical issues surrounding the use of such constructs are unclear. We sought to assess KT candidates' attitudes and beliefs about the use of frailty and cognitive function to guide waitlist selection.

METHODS

KT candidates were randomly recruited from an ongoing single-center cohort study of frailty and cognitive function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was performed. Inductively derived themes were mapped onto bioethics principles.

RESULTS

Twenty interviews were conducted (65% contact rate, 100% participation rate) (60% male; 70% White). With respect to the use of frailty and cognitive function in waitlisting decisions, four themes emerged in which participants: (1) valued maximizing a scarce resource (utility); (2) prioritized equal access to all patients (equity); (3) appreciated a proportional approach to the use of equity and utility (precautionary utility); and (4) sought to weigh utility- and equity-based concerns regarding social support. While some participants believed frailty and cognitive function were useful constructs to maximize utility, others believed their use would jeopardize equity. Patients were uncomfortable with using single factors such as frailty or cognitive impairment to deny someone access to transplantation; participants instead encouraged using the constructs to identify opportunities for intervention to improve frailty and cognitive function prior to KT.

CONCLUSIONS

KT candidates' values mirrored the current allocation strategy, seeking to balance equity and utility in a just manner, albeit with conflicting viewpoints on the appropriate use of frailty and cognitive impairment in waitlisting decisions.

The stigma of alcohol-related liver disease and its impact on healthcare

People with alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) experience stigma and discrimination. This review summarises the evidence on stigma in healthcare and its implications for people with ALD, drawing from the literature on the stigma associated with mental illness and, specifically, alcohol use disorder (AUD). Public stigma, self-stigma and structural stigma all contribute to failure to seek help or delays in seeking help, inferior healthcare, and negative health outcomes, which increase the overall burden of ALD. Stigma can be experienced, but also anticipated and avoided, with both scenarios negatively impacting on ALD healthcare. Blaming people with ALD for their condition is central to the stigma of ALD. Stigma affects ALD healthcare at all stages, from prevention, early detection and intervention, to allocation of scarce resources in liver transplantation. People with lived experience need to be empowered to lead action against the stigmatisation of patients with ALD. Promulgating a dynamic model of individual and social responsibility for AUD, a continuum model of harmful alcohol use, and establishing training on ALD-related stigma for healthcare professionals are strategies to address stigma. Integrating addiction and ALD services, providing stigma-free prevention, and overcoming the frequent separation of addiction services from general healthcare are necessary. Beyond healthcare, addressing social inequality, the social dimensions of ALD risk and outcomes, and ensuring equal access to services is necessary to improve outcomes for all people with ALD. More research is needed on the stigma of ALD in low- and middle-income countries and in countries with restrictive drinking norms. Interventions to reduce the stigma of ALD and facilitate early help-seeking need to be developed and evaluated.

Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation

Medical advancement has increased the confidence in successful organ transplants in end-stage patients. As the waitlist of organ demand is multiplying, the organ allocation process is becoming more crucial. In this situation, a transparent and efficient organ allocation policy is required. This study evaluates the preferences of medical experts to substantial factors for allocating organs in different hypothetical scenarios. Twenty-five medical professionals with a significant role in organ allocation were interviewed individually. The interview questionnaire comprised demographic information, organ donation status, important organ allocation factors, public preference knowledge, and experts’ preferences in different hypothetical scenarios. Most medical experts rated the waiting time and prognosis as the most important, while the next of kin donor status and care and contribution to the well-being of others were the least important factors for organ allocation. In expert opinion, medical experts significantly considered public preferences for organ allocation in making their decisions. Altogether, experts prioritized waiting time over successful transplant, age, and donor status in the hypothetical scenarios. In parallel, less chance of finding another organ, donor status, and successful transplant were prioritized over age. Medical experts are the key stakeholders; therefore, their opinions are substantial in formulating an organ allocation policy.

Community preferences for the allocation of scarce healthcare resources during the Covid-19 pandemic: a review of the literature

Objective

The purpose of this thematic review is to examine the literature on the publics’ preferences of scarce medical resource allocation during COVID-19.

Study design

Literature review.

Methods

A review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus was performed between December 2019 and June 2022 for eligible articles.

Results

Fifteen studies using three methodologies and spanning five continents were included. Five key themes were identified: (1) prioritise the youngest; (2) save the most lives; (3) egalitarian allocation approaches; (4) prioritise healthcare workers; and (5) bias against particular groups. The public gave high priority to allocation that saved the most lives, particularly to patients who are younger and healthcare workers. Themes present but not supported as broadly were giving priority to individuals with disabilities, high frailty or those with behaviours that may have contributed to their ill-health (e.g. smokers). Allocation involving egalitarian approaches received the least support among community members.

Conclusion

The general public prefer rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic based on saving the most lives and giving priority to the youngest and frontline healthcare workers rather than giving preference to patients with disabilities, frailty or perceived behaviours that may have contributed to their own ill-health. There is also little public support for allocation based on egalitarian strategies.

Public Perception of Organ Donation and Transplantation Policies in Southern Spain

BACKGROUND

This research explores how public awareness and attitudes toward donation and transplantation policies may contribute to Spain's success in cadaveric organ donation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A representative sample of 813 people residing in Andalusia (Southern Spain) were surveyed by telephone or via Internet between October and December 2018.

RESULTS

Most participants trust Spain's donation and transplantation system (93%) and wish to donate their organs after death (76%). Among donors, a majority have expressed their consent (59%), and few nondonors have expressed their refusal (14%). Only a minority are aware of the presumed consent system in force (28%) and feel sufficiently informed regarding the requirements needed to be an organ donor (16%). Participants mainly consider that relatives should represent the deceased's preferences and be consulted when the deceased's wishes are unknown, as is the case in Spain.

CONCLUSION

Public trust in the transplant system may contribute to Spain's high performance in organ donation. High levels of societal support toward organ donation and transplantation do not correspond with similar levels of public awareness of donation and transplantation policies in Spain.

Healthcare professional and community preferences in deceased donor kidney allocation: A best-worst scaling survey

Deceased donor kidneys are a scarce community resource; therefore, the principles underpinning organ allocation should reflect societal values. This study aimed to elicit community and healthcare professional preferences for principles guiding the allocation of kidneys from deceased donors and compare how these differed across the populations. A best-worst scaling survey including 29 principles in a balanced incomplete block design was conducted among a representative sample of the general community (n = 1237) and healthcare professionals working in transplantation (n = 206). Sequential best-worst multinomial logistic regression was used to derive scaled preference scores (PS) (range 0-100). Thematic analysis of free text responses was performed. Five of the six most valued principles among members of the community related to equity, including priority for the longest waiting (PS 100), difficult to transplant (PS 94.5) and sickest (PS 93.9), and equitable access for men and women (PS 94.0), whereas the top four principles for healthcare professional focused on maximizing utility (PS 89.9-100). Latent class analysis identified unmeasured class membership among community members. There are discordant views between community members and healthcare professionals. These should be considered in the design, evaluation, and implementation of deceased donor kidney allocation protocols.

How Should Deceased Donor Organs Be Allocated? The Patient's Perspective Derived from Semi-Structured Interviews

PURPOSE

The gap between the supply and demand for deceased donor organs is increasing worldwide, while patients on waiting lists for organ transplantation die. This situation requires ethical donor organ allocation rules. The patients' perspective on donor organ allocation rules offers a highly relevant and unique perspective that may differ from the perspectives of physicians and the general public.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with the regional group coordinators of the federal self-help organization for organ transplanted patients and their relatives in Germany in early 2021. Twelve interviews were conducted with patients and relatives of transplantation patients who received transplants for the affected organs including the lungs, heart, kidney, and liver. Transcripts were analyzed using the deductive framework method which was based on an earlier study. All criteria were reported following the COREQ statement.

RESULTS

Participants emphasized aspects of "medical urgency" and "effectiveness/benefit" of transplantation and associated trade-offs as well as the recipient's responsibility for organ failure ("own fault"), the appreciation for the gifted graft and the patient's capability of taking care of it ("appreciation/responsibility"). Patients acknowledged that urgent patients should be prioritized and they showed a clear preference toward allocation rules that strive to maximize both the life years and quality of life gained by transplantation.

CONCLUSION

The patients' perspective is unique in that patients agree on certain rules for allocation and share many preferences, but also have a hard time finding clear cutoff points when considering selecting a participant for allocation. Patient representatives should therefore be consulted in the debate on donor organ allocation rules.

'As a surgeon, I am obliged to every single patient': evaluation of focus group discussions with transplantation physicians on the allocation of donor organs

INTRODUCTION

Organ transplantation is the last resort for many patients. The ubiquitous shortage of suitable donor organs raises the question of best-justifiable allocation worldwide. This study investigates how physicians would allocate donor organs.

METHODS

Focus group discussions with a total of 12 transplant surgeons and 2 other transplant-related physicians were held at the annual conference of the German Transplantation Society (Oct 2019). Three groups discussed aspects of 'egalitarianism', 'effectiveness/benefit', 'medical urgency', 'own fault', 'medical background' and 'socio-demographic status'.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It was observed that physicians often find themselves confronted with conflicts between (a) trying to advocate for their individual patients versus (b) seeing the systemic perspective and understanding the global impact of their decisions at the same time. The groups agreed that due to the current shortage of donor organs in the German allocation system, transplanted patients are often too sick at the point of transplantation and that a better balance between urgency and effectiveness is needed. The aspects of 'effectiveness' and 'urgency' were identified as the most challenging issues and thus were the main focus of debate. The dilemmas physicians find themselves in become increasingly severe, the larger the shortage of suitable donor organs is.

The Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources: A Comparative Study From Jordan

The allocation strategies during challenging situations among the different social groups is based on 9 principles which can be considered either individually: sickest first, waiting list, prognosis, youngest first, instrumental values, lottery, monetary contribution, reciprocity, and individual behavior, or in combination; youngest first and prognosis, for example. In this study, we aim to look into the most important prioritization principles amongst different groups in the Jordanian population, in order to facilitate the decision-making process for any potential medical crisis. We conducted an online survey that tackled how individuals would deal with three different scenarios of medical scarcity: (1) organ donation, (2) limited hospital beds during an influenza epidemic, and (3) allocation of novel therapeutics for lung cancer. In addition, a free-comment option was included at the end of the survey if respondents wished to contribute further. Seven hundred and fifty-four survey responses were gathered, including 372 males (49.3%), and 382 females (50.7%). Five groups of individuals were represented including religion scholars, physicians, medical students, allied health practitioners, and lay people. Of the five surveyed groups, four found “sickest-first” to be the most important prioritization principle in all three scenarios, and only the physicians group documented a disagreement. In the first scenario, physicians regarded “sickest-first” and “combined-criteria” to be of equal importance. In general, no differences were documented between the examined groups in comparison with lay people in the preference of options in all three scenarios; however, physicians were more likely to choose “combination” in both the second and third scenarios (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.62–8.44, and 2.62, 95% CI 1.48–4.59; p < 0.01), and were less likely to choose “sickest-first” as the single most important prioritization principle (OR 0.57, CI 0.37–0.88, and 0.57; 95% CI 0.36–0.88; p < 0.01). Out of 100 free comments, 27 (27.0%) thought that the “social-value” of patients should also be considered, adding the 10th potential allocation principle. Our findings are concordant with literature in terms of allocating scarce medical resources. However, “social-value” appeared as an important principle that should be addressed when prioritizing scarce medical resources in Jordan.

French People's Views on the Allocation of Organs for Transplantation

BACKGROUND

French laypeople's views on the allocation of organs for transplantation were examined.

METHODS

A total of 199 adults make judgments of priority for a liver transplant in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of 4 factors: 1. probability of success, 2. life expectancy without transplant, 3. level of responsibility for liver failure (eg, substance abuse in the past), and 4. social situation (eg, young mother with 2 young children). In all scenarios, the patients were in need of liver transplant. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Six qualitatively different positions were found that were termed Probability of Success and Life Expectancy (6%), Family Responsibilities (8%), Family Responsibilities and Risky Behavior (28%), Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities (22%), Risky Behavior (11%), and Always a Priority (25%). Regular church attendees expressed more often the Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities position and less often the Always a Priority position than atheists. Female participants expressed more often the Risky Behavior position than male participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The French laypeople in our sample think that when assessing priority for transplant, criteria additional to medical urgency or the estimated utility in terms of expected life span after transplant should be taken into account. These criteria are the patient's lack of responsibility for the liver failure (ie, not causing it by drinking or using drugs) and the extent of the patient's social responsibilities (with active employment and dependents to care for).

Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: Focus group discussions

BACKGROUND

Deceased donor organs are scarce resources because of a large supply-and-demand mismatch. This scarcity leads to an ethical dilemma, forcing priority-setting of how these organs should be allocated and whom to leave behind.

OBJECTIVE

To explore public preferences for the allocation of donor organs in regard to ethical aspects of distributive justice.

METHODS

Focus groups were facilitated between November and December 2018 at Hannover Medical School. Participants were recruited locally. Transcripts were assessed with content analysis using the deductive framework method. All identified and discussed criteria were grouped according to the principles of distributive justice and reported following the COREQ statement.

RESULTS

Six focus groups with 31 participants were conducted. Overall, no group made a final decision of how to allocate donor organ; however, we observed that not only a single criterion/principle but rather a combination of criteria/principles is relevant. Therefore, the public wants to allocate organs to save as many lives as possible by both maximizing success for and also giving priority to urgent patients considering the best compatibility. Age, waiting time, reciprocity and healthy lifestyles should be used as additional criteria, while sex, financial status and family responsibility should not, based on aspects of equality.

CONCLUSIONS

All participants recognized the dilemma that prioritizing one patient might cause another one to die. They discussed mainly the unclear trade-offs between effectiveness/benefit and medical urgency and did not establish an agreement about their importance. The results suggest a need of preference studies to elucidate public preferences in organ allocation.