J Daryl Thornton1,2, Bridget Patrick3, Catherine Sullivan1, Jeffrey M Albert4, Kristine A Wong5, Margaret D Allen6, Linda Kimble7, Heather Mekesa8, Gordon Bowen8, Ashwini R Sehgal1,4,9. 1. Center for Reducing Health Disparities, MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Oakland, California. 6. Benaroya Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 7. Cleveland Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program (MOTTEP), Cleveland, Ohio. 8. LifeBanc, Cleveland, Ohio. 9. Division of Nephrology, MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of video interventions to increase organ donation willingness remains unclear. METHODS: Three-arm web-based randomized controlled trial involving 2261 students at 3 northeastern Ohio universities. Intervention students watched a live-action (n = 755) or animated (n = 753) donation video. Control students (n = 753) viewed wellness information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was proportion of students who visited their state electronic donor registry to consent. The secondary outcome was intervention quality. Logistic regression assessed the effects of interventions on visiting the state registry to provide donation consent while controlling for baseline variables. RESULTS: Students in the live-action video arm visited their state registry more frequently than students in the CDC arm (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.20-2.88). There was no difference between students in the animated video and CDC arms (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.69-1.76). The quality of the live-action video was rated lower than the animated video and the CDC text (75% ± 18, 84% ± 16, 80% ± 16, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Students who watched the live-action video were more willing to visit their electronic donor registry to register as organ donors, but rated it lower in satisfaction. Future work should identify the most potent components of organ donation interventions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of video interventions to increase organ donation willingness remains unclear. METHODS: Three-arm web-based randomized controlled trial involving 2261 students at 3 northeastern Ohio universities. Intervention students watched a live-action (n = 755) or animated (n = 753) donation video. Control students (n = 753) viewed wellness information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was proportion of students who visited their state electronic donor registry to consent. The secondary outcome was intervention quality. Logistic regression assessed the effects of interventions on visiting the state registry to provide donation consent while controlling for baseline variables. RESULTS: Students in the live-action video arm visited their state registry more frequently than students in the CDC arm (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.20-2.88). There was no difference between students in the animated video and CDC arms (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.69-1.76). The quality of the live-action video was rated lower than the animated video and the CDC text (75% ± 18, 84% ± 16, 80% ± 16, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Students who watched the live-action video were more willing to visit their electronic donor registry to register as organ donors, but rated it lower in satisfaction. Future work should identify the most potent components of organ donation interventions.
Authors: Jason T Siegel; Eusebio M Alvaro; William D Crano; Andrew Lac; Sarah Ting; Sara Pace Jones Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: J O Prochaska; W F Velicer; J S Rossi; M G Goldstein; B H Marcus; W Rakowski; C Fiore; L L Harlow; C A Redding; D Rosenbloom Journal: Health Psychol Date: 1994-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: P McNamara; E Guadagnoli; M J Evanisko; C Beasley; E A Santiago-Delpin; C O Callender; E Christiansen Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 1999-02 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