J Daryl Thornton1,2, Catherine Sullivan3, Jeffrey M Albert4, Maria Cedeño3, Bridget Patrick3, Julie Pencak3, Kristine A Wong5, Margaret D Allen6,7, Linda Kimble8, Heather Mekesa9, Gordon Bowen9, Ashwini R Sehgal3,4,10. 1. Center for Reducing Health Disparities, MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Rammelkamp R209A, Cleveland, OH, USA. daryl.thornton@case.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. daryl.thornton@case.edu. 3. Center for Reducing Health Disparities, MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Rammelkamp R209A, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. , Oakland, CA, USA. 6. Benaroya Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Cleveland Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program (MOTTEP), Cleveland, OH, USA. 9. LifeBanc, Cleveland, OH, USA. 10. Division of Nephrology, MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low organ donation rates remain a major barrier to organ transplantation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of a video and patient cueing on organ donation consent among patients meeting with their primary care provider. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial between February 2013 and May 2014. SETTING: The waiting rooms of 18 primary care clinics of a medical system in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. PATIENTS: The study included 915 patients over 15.5 years of age who had not previously consented to organ donation. INTERVENTIONS: Just prior to their clinical encounter, intervention patients (n = 456) watched a 5-minute organ donation video on iPads and then choose a question regarding organ donation to ask their provider. Control patients (n = 459) visited their provider per usual routine. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who consented for organ donation. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who discussed organ donation with their provider and the proportion who were satisfied with the time spent with their provider during the clinical encounter. KEY RESULTS: Intervention patients were more likely than control patients to consent to donate organs (22 % vs. 15 %, OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.13). Intervention patients were also more likely to have donation discussions with their provider (77 % vs. 18 %, OR 15.1, 95%CI 11.1-20.6). Intervention and control patients were similarly satisfied with the time they spent with their provider (83 % vs. 86 %, OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.61-1.25). LIMITATION: How the observed increases in organ donation consent might translate into a greater organ supply is unclear. CONCLUSION: Watching a brief video regarding organ donation and being cued to ask a primary care provider a question about donation resulted in more organ donation discussions and an increase in organ donation consent. Satisfaction with the time spent during the clinical encounter was not affected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01697137.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Low organ donation rates remain a major barrier to organ transplantation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of a video and patient cueing on organ donation consent among patients meeting with their primary care provider. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial between February 2013 and May 2014. SETTING: The waiting rooms of 18 primary care clinics of a medical system in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. PATIENTS: The study included 915 patients over 15.5 years of age who had not previously consented to organ donation. INTERVENTIONS: Just prior to their clinical encounter, intervention patients (n = 456) watched a 5-minute organ donation video on iPads and then choose a question regarding organ donation to ask their provider. Control patients (n = 459) visited their provider per usual routine. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who consented for organ donation. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who discussed organ donation with their provider and the proportion who were satisfied with the time spent with their provider during the clinical encounter. KEY RESULTS: Intervention patients were more likely than control patients to consent to donate organs (22 % vs. 15 %, OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.13). Intervention patients were also more likely to have donation discussions with their provider (77 % vs. 18 %, OR 15.1, 95%CI 11.1-20.6). Intervention and control patients were similarly satisfied with the time they spent with their provider (83 % vs. 86 %, OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.61-1.25). LIMITATION: How the observed increases in organ donation consent might translate into a greater organ supply is unclear. CONCLUSION: Watching a brief video regarding organ donation and being cued to ask a primary care provider a question about donation resulted in more organ donation discussions and an increase in organ donation consent. Satisfaction with the time spent during the clinical encounter was not affected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01697137.
Entities:
Keywords:
donor designation; minority donation; organ donation; organ transplantation; public attitudes; racial disparities; randomized controlled trial
Authors: Susan E Morgan; Tyler R Harrison; Shawn D Long; Walid A Afifi; Michael T Stephenson; Michael S Stephenson; Tom Reichert Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: James R Rodrigue; Jennifer Krouse; Christopher Carroll; Kathleen M Giery; Yilian Fraga; Elizabeth Edwards Journal: Prog Transplant Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.187
Authors: N K R Sehgal; C Scallan; C Sullivan; M Cedeño; J Pencak; J Kirkland; K Scott; J D Thornton Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Dorota Chapko; Pino Frumiento; Nalini Edwards; Lizzie Emeh; Donald Kennedy; David McNicholas; Michaela Overton; Mark Snead; Robyn Steward; Jenny M Sutton; Evie Jeffreys; Catherine Long; Jess Croll-Knight; Ben Connors; Sam Castell-Ward; David Coke; Bethany McPeake; William Renel; Chris McGinley; Anna Remington; Dora Whittuck; John Kieffer; Sarah Ewans; Mark Williams; Mick Grierson Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2020-04-21
Authors: J Daryl Thornton; Bridget Patrick; Catherine Sullivan; Jeffrey M Albert; Kristine A Wong; Margaret D Allen; Linda Kimble; Heather Mekesa; Gordon Bowen; Ashwini R Sehgal Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Derek A DuBay; Nataliya V Ivankova; Ivan Herbey; David T Redden; Cheryl Holt; Laura Siminoff; Mona N Fouad; Zemin Su; Thomas A Morinelli; Michelle Y Martin Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2018-09-23 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Alvin H Li; Marcus Lo; Jacob E Crawshaw; Alexie J Dunnett; Kyla L Naylor; Amit X Garg; Justin Presseau Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-04
Authors: Stephen P Wall; Patricio Castillo; Francine Shuchat-Shaw; Elizabeth Norman; David Brown; Natalia Martinez-López; Mairyn López-Ríos; Azizi A Seixas; Jan L Plass; Joseph E Ravenell Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2022-02-16
Authors: Alvin H Li; Amit X Garg; Versha Prakash; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Monica Taljaard; Joanna Mitchell; Danny Matti; Stefanie Linklater; Kyla L Naylor; Stephanie Dixon; Cathy Faulds; Rachel Bevan; Leah Getchell; Greg Knoll; S Joseph Kim; Jessica Sontrop; Lise M Bjerre; Allison Tong; Justin Presseau Journal: Trials Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 2.279