Comparing preferences of physicians and patients regarding the allocation of donor organs: A systematic review

Setting Organ Allocation Priorities: A Discrete Choice Experiment with German Patients and Their Relatives

PURPOSE

Organ transplantation systems benefit from guidelines that are harmonious with the preferences of the people involved. Discrete choice experiments are useful tools for eliciting preferences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study evaluated the preferences of patients and their relatives (n=285) to identify their priorities in organ allocation using a discrete choice experiment. In eight hypothetical allocation decisions, the participants were asked to select the candidate they considered the most suitable The candidates differed in years of life gained after transplantation, quality of life after transplantation, waiting time until transplantation, age, compliance and social support.

RESULTS

The most important aspects for setting priority in organ allocation were lack of compliance (β= -2.5, p<0.001) and good quality of life after transplantation (β = +1.4, p<0.001). The lack of social support (ß = -0.8, p<0.05) and the more years of life gained after transplantation (β = +0.5, p<0.001) had less but still a significant amount of influence on this decision, while the waiting list was not considered significantly important (β = 0.1, p>0.05). The comparison of the different relations to transplantation showed that life years gained after transplantation was of high relevance to posttransplant patients (+10 years: β = +0.709, p<0.001 / +15 years: β = +0.700, p<0.001) and of no importance to waitlisted patients (+10 years: β = +0.345, p>0.05 / + 15 years: β = +0.173, p>0.05) and relatives (+ 10 years: β = +0.063, p>0.05 / +15 years: β = +0.304, p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study provides useful insights into the unique perspective of patients and their relatives on priority-setting in the allocation of donor organs that should be reflected in improved donor organ allocation rules.

Current Approaches in the Allocation of Liver Transplantation

In recent decades, important advances have been made in the field of liver transplantation. One of the major problems remaining in this area is the small number of donors. Thus, recent data bring multiple updates of the indications and contraindications of this therapeutic method. The main goal is to increase the number of patients who can benefit from liver transplantation, a therapeutic method that can improve life expectancy and the quality of life of patients with end-stage liver disease. Another goal in the management of these patients is represented by the optimal care of those on the waiting list during that period. A multidisciplinary team approach is necessary to obtain the best results for both the donor and the recipient.

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.

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.

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.