Randomised, Double Blind, Controlled Trial of the Provision of Information about the Benefits of Organ Donation during a Family Donation Conversation

Tested communication strategies for providing information to patients in medical consultations: A scoping review and quality assessment of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To systematize the scientific knowledge of empirically tested strategies for verbally providing medical information in patient-physician consultations.

METHODS

A scoping review searching for terms related to physician, information, oral communication, and controlled study. Four pairs of reviewers screened articles. For each selected study, we assessed the quality and summarized aspects on participants, study, intervention, and outcomes. Information provision strategies were inductively classified by types and main categories.

RESULTS

After screening 9422 articles, 39 were included. The methodological quality was moderate. We identified four differently used categories of strategies for providing information: cognitive aid (n = 13), persuasive (n = 8), relationship- (n = 3), and objectivity-oriented strategies (n = 4); plus, one "mixed" category (n = 11). Strategies were rarely theoretically derived.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research of tested strategies for verbally providing medical information is marked by great heterogeneity in methods and outcomes, and lack of theory-driven approaches. The list of strategies could be used to analyse real life communication.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings may aid the harmonization of future efforts to develop empirically-based information provision strategies to be used in clinical and teaching settings.

Interventions for increasing solid organ donor registration

BACKGROUND

A solution for increasing the number of available organs for transplantation is to encourage more individuals to register a commitment for deceased organ donation. However, the percentage of the population registered for organ donation remains low in many countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of various interventions used to increase deceased organ donor registration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 11 August 2020 through contact with an Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs of interventions to promote deceased organ donor registration. We included studies if they measured self-reported or verified donor registration, intention to donate, intention to register a decision or number of individuals signing donor cards as outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed retrieved studies and extracted data from included studies. We assessed studies for risk of bias. We obtained summary estimates of effect using a random-effects model and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence intervals; CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD; 95% CI) or standardised mean difference (SMD; 95% CI) for continuous outcomes. In multi-arm trials, data were pooled to create single pair-wise comparisons. Analyses were stratified by specific intervention setting where available.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 46 studies (47 primary articles, including one abstract) comprising 24 parallel RCTs, 19 cluster RCTs and 3 quasi-RCTs. Sample sizes ranged from 138 to 1,085,292 (median = 514). A total of 16 studies measured registration behaviour, 27 measured intention to register/donate and three studies measured both registration behaviour and intention to register. Interventions were delivered in a variety of different settings: schools (14 studies), driver's motor vehicle (DMV) centres (5), mail-outs (4), primary care centres (3), workplaces (1), community settings (7) and general public (12). Interventions were highly varied in terms of their content and included strategies such as educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders, staff training, message framing, and priming. Most studies were rated as having high or unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment and low risk for the remainder of the domains. Data from 34/46 studies (74%) were available for meta-analysis. Low certainty evidence showed organ donation registration interventions had a small overall effect on improving registration behaviour (16 studies, 1,294,065 participants: RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.43, I2 = 84%), intention to register/donate (dichotomous) (10 studies, 10,838 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42, I2 = 91%) and intention to register/donate (continuous) (9 studies, 3572 participants: SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36, I2 = 67%). Classroom-based interventions delivered in a lecture format by individuals from the transplant community may be effective at increasing intention to register/donate (3 studies, 675 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55, I² = 0%). Community interventions targeting specific ethnic groups were generally effective at increasing registration rates (k = 5, n = 4186; RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.40, I² = 85%), although heterogeneity was high. In particular, interventions delivered in the community by trained peer-leaders appear to be effective (3 studies, 3819 participant: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.06, I² = 87%), although again, the data lacked robustness. There was some evidence that framing messages (e.g. anticipated regret) and priming individuals (e.g. reciprocity) in a certain way may increase intention to register/donate, however, few studies measured this effect on actual registration. Overall, the studies varied significantly in terms of design, setting, content and delivery. Selection bias was evident and a quarter of the studies could not be included in the meta-analysis due to incomplete outcome data reporting. No adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In our review, we identified a variety of approaches used to increase organ donor registration including school-based educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders in the community, DMV staff training, targeted messaging and priming. The variability in outcome measures used and incompleteness in reporting meant that most data could not be combined for analysis. When data were combined, overall effect sizes were small in favour of intervention groups over controls, however, there was significant variability in the data. There was some evidence that leveraging peer-leaders in the community to deliver organ donation education may improve registration rates and classroom-based education from credible individuals (i.e. members of the transplant community) may improve intention to register/donate, however, there is no clear evidence favouring any particular approach. There was mixed evidence for simple, low-intensity interventions utilising message framing and priming. However, it is likely that interest in these strategies will persist due to their reach and scalability. Further research is therefore required to adequately address the question of the most effective interventions for increasing deceased organ donor registration.

Estimating the effect of focused donor registration efforts on the number of organ donors

Waiting times for organs in the United States are long and vary widely across regions. Donor registration can increase the number of potential donors, but its effect on the actual number of organ transplants depends upon several factors. First among these factors is that deceased donor organ donation requires both that death occur in a way making recovery possible and that authorization to recover organs is obtained. We estimate the potential donor death rate and donor authorization rate conditional on potential donor death by donor registration status for each state and for key demographic groups. With this information, we then develop a simple measure of the value of a new donor registration. This combined measure using information on donor authorization rates and potential death rates varies widely across states and groups, suggesting that focusing registration efforts on high-value groups and locations can significantly increase the overall number of donors. Targeting high-value states raises 26.7 percent more donors than a uniform, nationwide registration effort. Our estimates can also be used to assess alternative, but complementary, policies such as protocols to improve authorization rates for non-registered potential donors.

Evaluation of the quality of the communication and emotional support during the donation procedure: The use of the donor family questionnaire (DFQ)

PURPOSE

A multi-centric study in Intensive Care units (ICU) and Emergency departments (ED) was designed to evaluate whether the provided communication and emotional support to the family in the context of organ donation met the international recommendations of the European Donor Hospital Education Program (EDHEP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a participatory approach and focus groups, a questionnaire was constructed: Donor Family questionnaire (DFQ). The questionnaire was distributed to 203 families. The data were analysed on item level.

RESULTS

Sixty-four families participated, and 89% considered the communication as tactful. Only 24.1% had a separate conversation about passing and donation, which is the recommendation. 88.5% reported they could count on emotional support in the first phase on the ICU/ED. This dropped during the parting phase and the aftercare. The physician is perceived as the most active caregiver in the emotional support during the entire procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The DFQ is a useful instrument to evaluate the donor procedure. The physician is important in the first phases of the donor procedure for the medical explanation. Other disciplines could be more involved in the following phases to assure enough emotional support, but this issue requires further exploration.

A Multidisciplinary Survey to Assess Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Organ Donation in the Intensive Care Unit

INTRODUCTION

Rates of successful organ donation vary between otherwise comparable intensive care units (ICUs). The ICU staff have a unique perspective into the facilitators and barriers underlying this variation in successful deceased organ donation.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What do ICU staff perceive to be the most meaningful facilitators and barriers to deceased organ donation?

DESIGN

We designed and conducted a survey of all disciplines working in the ICU to ascertain the perceived facilitators and barriers to donation in an academic tertiary care hospital. Survey reliability was assessed using Cronbach α. Factor analysis was used to assess construct validity and identify potentially redundant survey items.

RESULTS

We had responses from 108 ICU staff, including nurses (n = 75), respiratory therapists (n = 14), physicians (n = 12), chaplains (n = 2), as well as social work, pharmacy, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy (n = 1 each). Perceived facilitators included availability of organ donation organization coordinators, explicit institutional support for donation, ICU staff culture toward donation, standardized order sets for donation, presence of ICU staff with donation experience, and bedside nurse presence at discussions about donation. Perceived barriers included ICU staff ruling out potentially suitable donors before consulting a donor coordinator, physician communication skills, low priority for organ donation among operating room staff, limited family understanding of patient prognosis and organ donation, and limited emotional readiness of families to discuss donation.

DISCUSSION

Several staff-perceived facilitators and barriers to deceased organ donation were identified in the ICU. Future research could identify strategies to promote these facilitators and overcome barriers.