Literature DB >> 26457603

Preferences for Policy Options for Deceased Organ Donation for Transplantation: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Kirsten Howard1, Stephen Jan, John M Rose, Germaine Wong, Jonathan C Craig, Michelle Irving, Allison Tong, Steven Chadban, Richard D Allen, Alan Cass.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite broad public support for organ donation, there is a chronic shortage of deceased donor organs. We sought to identify community preferences for features of organ donation policies.
METHODS: A discrete choice study was conducted using an online panel of Australian community respondents older than 18 years. Respondents were presented with scenarios comparing a "new" policy to the current policy. Tradeoffs between 8 policy aspects were quantified using mixed logit and latent class models: registration system, extent of donor family involvement, ease of registration, frequency of confirmation of intent, direct payment, and funeral expense reimbursement, priority for donor's family, and formal recognition of donation.
RESULTS: There were 2005 respondents (mean, 44.6 years). We found a strong preference for a new policy. Overall, respondents favored a policy that included: some involvement of the donor's family in the final decision, simple registration processes, less frequent reconfirmation of donation intent, direct payment or funeral expense reimbursement, and formal recognition of donation. However, there was significant preference heterogeneity across respondents, with various respondent groups valuing policy mechanisms differently. Respondents who viewed policy change negatively were also those who would be unlikely to be organ donors anyway, because they tended to hold negative views toward organ donation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the Australian community are open to alternative organ donation policies including changes to: registration systems, family involvement, and financial and nonfinancial mechanisms. Future policy discussions should not be limited by preconceived notions of what is acceptable to the community, rather informed by actual community values and preferences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26457603     DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000940

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplantation        ISSN: 0041-1337            Impact factor:   4.939


  6 in total

1.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Reducing the costs of chronic kidney disease while delivering quality health care: a call to action.

Authors:  Raymond Vanholder; Lieven Annemans; Edwina Brown; Ron Gansevoort; Judith J Gout-Zwart; Norbert Lameire; Rachael L Morton; Rainer Oberbauer; Maarten J Postma; Marcello Tonelli; Wim Van Biesen; Carmine Zoccali
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 28.314

Review 3.  Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice.

Authors:  Carina Oedingen; Tim Bartling; Axel C Mühlbacher; Harald Schrem; Christian Krauth
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Organ donation and transplantation: a multi-stakeholder call to action.

Authors:  Raymond Vanholder; Beatriz Domínguez-Gil; Mirela Busic; Helena Cortez-Pinto; Jonathan C Craig; Kitty J Jager; Beatriz Mahillo; Vianda S Stel; Maria O Valentin; Carmine Zoccali; Gabriel C Oniscu
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 28.314

6.  Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Carina Oedingen; Tim Bartling; Christian Krauth
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.