1
|
Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19116945. [PMID: 35682530 PMCID: PMC9180581 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Revised: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
2
|
Bartling T, Oedingen C, Schrem H, Kohlmann T, Krauth C. 'As a surgeon, I am obliged to every single patient': evaluation of focus group discussions with transplantation physicians on the allocation of donor organs. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2021; 26:459-467. [PMID: 34343155 DOI: 10.1097/mot.0000000000000908] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tim Bartling
- Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School
- Center for Health Economic Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany
| | - Carina Oedingen
- Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School
- Center for Health Economic Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany
| | - Harald Schrem
- Center for Health Economic Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany
- Transplant Center Graz
- Department of Transplant Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Thomas Kohlmann
- Department for Methods of Community Medicine, Institute for Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
| | - Christian Krauth
- Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School
- Center for Health Economic Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Muñoz Sastre MT, Sorum PC, Kpanake L, Mullet E. French People's Views on the Allocation of Organs for Transplantation. Transplant Proc 2020; 53:520-528. [PMID: 32928555 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.08.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2020] [Revised: 07/20/2020] [Accepted: 08/08/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Paul Clay Sorum
- Department of internal medicine and pediatrics, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York
| | - Lonzozou Kpanake
- Department of social sciences, University of Québec-TELUQ, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
| | - Etienne Mullet
- Department of ethics and work, Institute of Advanced Studies, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bartling T, Oedingen C, Kohlmann T, Schrem H, Krauth C. Comparing preferences of physicians and patients regarding the allocation of donor organs: A systematic review. Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2020; 34:100515. [DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2019.100515] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2019] [Revised: 10/23/2019] [Accepted: 10/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
5
|
Oedingen C, Bartling T, Krauth C. Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e026040. [PMID: 30337317 PMCID: PMC6196962 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with severe organ failure. Nevertheless, donor organs are a scarce resource resulting in a large mismatch between supply and demand. Therefore, priority-setting leads to the dilemma of how these scarce organs should be allocated and who should be considered eligible to receive a suitable organ. In order to improve the supply-demand mismatch in transplantation medicine, this study explores preferences of different stakeholders (general public, medical professionals and patients) for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation in Germany. The aims are (1) to determine criteria and preferences, which are relevant for the allocation of scarce donor organs and (2) to compare the results between the three target groups to derive strategies for health policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We outline the study protocol for discrete choice experiments, where respondents are presented with different choices including attributes with varied attribute levels. They were asked to choose between these choice sets. First, systematic reviews will be conducted to identify the state of art. Subsequently, focus group discussions with the public and patients as well as expert interviews with medical professionals will follow to establish the attributes that are going to be included in the experiments and to verify the results of the systematic reviews. Using this qualitative exploratory work, discrete choice studies will be designed to quantitatively assess preferences. We will use a D-efficient fractional factorial design to survey a total sample of 600 respondents according to the public, medical professionals and patients each. Multinomial conditional logit model and latent class model will be analysed to estimate the final results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study has received Ethics Approval from the Hannover Medical School Human Ethics Committee (Vote number: 7921_BO_K_2018). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, workshops with stakeholders and peer-reviewed journal articles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carina Oedingen
- Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
- Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany
| | - Tim Bartling
- Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
- Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany
| | - Christian Krauth
- Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
- Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ehlers M, Vitinius F, Langenbach M. Altruistic nondirected kidney donation: attitudes, characteristics and ethical implications. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2018; 22:584-587. [PMID: 28857843 DOI: 10.1097/mot.0000000000000462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Altruistic nondirected kidney donation involves a person donating one of their kidneys to an unknown recipient. The donor's mental health and motives are frequently questioned. We want to highlight this topic and also encourage discussions about ethical implications. RECENT FINDINGS The main topics are the mental health of altruistic nondirected kidney donors and the general attitude towards the practice of this form of donation as well as the willingness of the public to donate this way. Soliciting organ donation via social networks or financial support is debated extensively in the media. SUMMARY There is a lack of studies on altruistic nondirected kidney donation. Most studies focus on related donors. Studies with larger samples should be performed on altruistic nondirected kidney donors to learn more about their motives and assess their mental health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maja Ehlers
- aDepartment of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne bDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, GFO Clinics Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kute VB, Patel HV, Shah PR, Modi PR, Shah VR, Rizvi SJ, Pal BC, Modi MP, Shah PS, Varyani UT, Wakhare PS, Shinde SG, Ghodela VA, Patel MH, Trivedi VB, Trivedi HL. Past, present and future of kidney paired donation transplantation in India. World J Transplant 2017; 7:134-143. [PMID: 28507916 PMCID: PMC5409913 DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v7.i2.134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2016] [Revised: 12/01/2016] [Accepted: 01/03/2017] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
One third of healthy willing living kidney donors are rejected due to ABO blood group incompatibility and donor specific antibody. This increases pre-transplant dialysis duration leading to increased morbidity and mortality on the kidney transplantation waiting list. Over the last decade kidney paired donation is most rapidly increased source of living kidney donors. In a kidney transplantation program dominated by living donor kidney transplantation, kidney paired donation is a legal and valid alternative strategy to increase living donor kidney transplantation. This is more useful in countries with limited resources where ABO incompatible kidney transplantation or desensitization protocol is not feasible because of costs/infectious complications and deceased donor kidney transplantation is in initial stages. The matching allocation, ABO blood type imbalance, reciprocity, simultaneity, geography were the limitation for the expansion of kidney paired donation. Here we describe different successful ways to increase living donor kidney transplantation through kidney paired donation. Compatible pairs, domino chain, combination of kidney paired donation with desensitization or ABO incompatible transplantation, international kidney paired donation, non-simultaneous, extended, altruistic donor chain and list exchange are different ways to expand the donor pool. In absence of national kidney paired donation program, a dedicated kidney paired donation team will increase access to living donor kidney transplantation in individual centres with team work. Use of social networking sites to expand donor pool, HLA based national kidney paired donation program will increase quality and quantity of kidney paired donation transplantation. Transplant centres should remove the barriers to a broader implementation of multicentre, national kidney paired donation program to further optimize potential of kidney paired donation to increase transplantation of O group and sensitized patients. This review assists in the development of similar programs in other developing countries.
Collapse
|
8
|
Basu D, Ghosh A. Kidney donation: Clinical practice and ethical dilemmas. Indian J Nephrol 2016; 26:391-392. [PMID: 27942167 PMCID: PMC5131374 DOI: 10.4103/0971-4065.179200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- D Basu
- Department of Psychiatry, Drug De-Addiction and Treatment Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - A Ghosh
- Department of Psychiatry, Drug De-Addiction and Treatment Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| |
Collapse
|