Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:It is unclear how much information should be provided to families of potential organ donors about the benefits of organ donation. Whilst this information is material to the donation decision, it may also be perceived as coercive. METHODS:Randomised, double blind, controlled trial in which community members watched one of two videos of a simulated organ donation conversation that differed only in the amount of information provided about the benefits of donation. Participants then completed a questionnaire about the adequacy of the information provided and the degree to which they felt the doctor was trying to convince the family member to say yes to donation. RESULTS:There was a wide variability in what participants considered was the "right" amount of information about organ donation. Those who watched the conversation that included information about the benefits of donation were more likely to feel that the information provided to the family was sufficient. They were more likely to report that the doctor was trying to convince the family member to say yes to donation, yet were no more likely to feel uncomfortable or to feel that the doctor was uncaring or cared more about transplant recipients than he did for the patient and their family. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that community members are comfortable with health care staff providing information to family members that may be influential in supporting them to give consent for donation.

SUBMITTER: Philpot SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4913899 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Philpot Steve John SJ Aranha Sarah S Pilcher David V DV Bailey Michael M

PloS one 20160620 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>It is unclear how much information should be provided to families of potential organ donors about the benefits of organ donation. Whilst this information is material to the donation decision, it may also be perceived as coercive.<h4>Methods</h4>Randomised, double blind, controlled trial in which community members watched one of two videos of a simulated organ donation conversation that differed only in the amount of information provided about the benefits of donation. Partic ...[more]

PMID: 27322832

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Because organ transplantation relies on public support for donation, an analysis of public discourse around organ donation is essential. We investigated the portrayal of family veto - when a family overrides the deceased person's prior legally executed wishes to donate - in Canadian news media. METHODS:Using the Canadian Newsstream database, we identified articles published in English-language newspapers addressing family veto between 2000 and 2016. Guided by the theoretical perspectives of framing of media effects, we conducted a systematic content analysis of the articles to examine how the Canadian media framed family veto. An initial in-depth analysis of the data set in which themes and patterns were captured and recorded identified coding categories, including primary framing of family veto, prevalence, reasons, ethical or legal concerns and overall tone of the article. Two coders analyzed the data set to ensure intercoder reliability. RESULTS:A total of 133 relevant articles were identified. Family veto was framed predominantly as something that should not be allowed (81 articles [60.9%]) and as a reality that is little understood outside the transplantation community (45 [33.8%]). One-quarter of the articles (32 [24.1%]) highlighted ethical principles of autonomy and justice associated with family veto. Family veto was represented as a stumbling block in the present organ donation system, with most publications (107 [80.4%]) calling for change. There were differing interpretations of organ donation legislation, with 82 articles (61.6%) erroneously stating or suggesting that existing legislation permits family veto. INTERPRETATION:Family veto in organ donation was portrayed predominantly negatively. Many publications reflected a misunderstanding of the law concerning this issue. Although the framing of family veto highlighted important ethical and legal concerns as well as practice and policy considerations, research is needed to enhance the understanding of family veto in organ donation.

Project description:BackgroundAspartame is a commonly used intense artificial sweetener, being approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose. There have been concerns over aspartame since approval in the 1980s including a large anecdotal database reporting severe symptoms. The objective of this study was to compare the acute symptom effects of aspartame to a control preparation.MethodsThis was a double-blind randomized cross over study conducted in a clinical research unit in United Kingdom. Forty-eight individual who has self reported sensitivity to aspartame were compared to 48 age and gender matched aspartame non-sensitive individuals. They were given aspartame (100mg)-containing or control snack bars randomly at least 7 days apart. The main outcome measures were acute effects of aspartame measured using repeated ratings of 14 symptoms, biochemistry and metabonomics.ResultsAspartame sensitive and non-sensitive participants differed psychologically at baseline in handling feelings and perceived stress. Sensitive participants had higher triglycerides (2.05 ± 1.44 vs. 1.26 ± 0.84mmol/L; p value 0.008) and lower HDL-C (1.16 ± 0.34 vs. 1.35 ± 0.54 mmol/L; p value 0.04), reflected in 1H NMR serum analysis that showed differences in the baseline lipid content between the two groups. Urine metabonomic studies showed no significant differences. None of the rated symptoms differed between aspartame and control bars, or between sensitive and control participants. However, aspartame sensitive participants rated more symptoms particularly in the first test session, whether this was placebo or control. Aspartame and control bars affected GLP-1, GIP, tyrosine and phenylalanine levels equally in both aspartame sensitive and non-sensitive subjects.ConclusionUsing a comprehensive battery of psychological tests, biochemistry and state of the art metabonomics there was no evidence of any acute adverse responses to aspartame. This independent study gives reassurance to both regulatory bodies and the public that acute ingestion of aspartame does not have any detectable psychological or metabolic effects in humans.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39650237.

Project description:IntroductionRemote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) using a non-invasive pneumatic tourniquet is a potential method for reducing ischaemia-reperfusion injury. RIPC has been extensively studied in animal models and cardiac surgery, but scarcely in solid organ transplantation. RIPC could be an inexpensive and simple method to improve function of transplanted organs. Accordingly, we aim to study whether RIPC performed in brain-dead organ donors improves function and longevity of transplanted organs.Methods and analysesRIPTRANS is a multicentre, sham-controlled, parallel group, randomised superiority trial comparing RIPC intervention versus sham-intervention in brain-dead organ donors scheduled to donate at least one kidney. Recipients of the organs (kidney, liver, pancreas, heart, lungs) from a randomised donor will be included provided that they give written informed consent. The RIPC intervention is performed by inflating a thigh tourniquet to 300 mm Hg 4 times for 5 min. The intervention is done two times: first right after the declaration of brain death and second immediately before transferring the donor to the operating theatre. The sham group receives the tourniquet, but it is not inflated. The primary endpoint is delayed graft function (DGF) in kidney allografts. Secondary endpoints include short-term functional outcomes of transplanted organs, rejections and graft survival in various time points up to 20 years. We aim to show that RIPC reduces the incidence of DGF from 25% to 15%. According to this, the sample size is set to 500 kidney transplant recipients.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Helsinki University Hospital Ethics Committee and Helsinki University Hospital's Institutional Review Board. The study protocol was be presented at the European Society of Organ Transplantation congress in Copenhagen 14-15 September 2019. The study results will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication.Trial registration numberNCT03855722.

Project description:ImportanceOrgan transplant is a life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage organ failure. In the US, organ procurement organizations (OPOs) are responsible for the evaluation and procurement of organs from donors who have died; however, there is controversy regarding what measures should be used to evaluate their performance.ObjectiveTo evaluate OPO performance metrics using combined mortality and donation data and quantify the associations of population demographics with donation metrics.Design, setting, and participantsThis national cohort study includes data from the US organ transplantation system from January 2008 through December 2017. All individuals who died within the US, as reported by the National Death index, were included.ExposuresDeath, organ donation, and donation eligibility.Main outcomes and measuresEvaluation of the variation in donation metrics and the use of ineligible donors by OPO and demographic subgroup.ResultsThis study included 17 501 742 deaths and 75 769 deceased organ donors (45 040 men [59.4%]; 51 908 White individuals [68.5%]). Of these donors, 15 857 (20.9%) were not eligible, as defined by the OPOs. The median donation metrics by OPO were 0.004 (range, 0.002-0.012) donors per death, 0.89 (range, 0.68-1.30) donors per eligible death, and 0.72 (range, 0.57-0.86) eligible donors per eligible death. The OPOs in the upper quartile of the overall eligible donors per eligible death metric were in the upper quartile of annual rankings on 90 of 140 occasions (64.3%). There was little overlap in top-performing OPOs between metrics; an OPO in the upper quartile for 1 metric was also in the upper quartile for the other metrics on 37 of 570 occasions (6.5% of the time). The median donor eligibility rate, defined as the number of eligible donors per donor, was 0.79 (range, 0.61-0.95) across OPOs. Age (eg, 65 to 84 years, coefficient, -0.55 [SE, 0.03]; P < .001; vs those aged 18 to 34 years), sex (male individuals, -0.09 [SE, 0.02]; P < .001; vs female individuals), race (eg, Black individuals, 0.35 [SE, 0.02]; P < .001; vs White individuals), cause of death (eg, central nervous system tumor, 0.48 [SE, 0.08]; P < .001; vs anoxia), year (eg, 2016-2017: -0.10 [SE, 0.03]; P < .001; vs 2008-2009), and OPO were associated with the use of ineligible donors; OPO was a significant factor associated with performance in all metrics (χ256, 500.5; P < .001; coefficient range across individual OPOs, -0.15 [SE, 0.09] to 0.75 [SE, 0.09]), even after accounting for population differences. Female and non-White individuals were significantly less likely to be used as ineligible donors.Conclusions and relevanceWe demonstrate significant variability in OPO performance rankings, depending on which donation metric is used. There were significant differences in OPO performance, even after accounting for differences in potential donor populations. Our data suggest significant variation in use of ineligible donors among OPOs, a source for increased donors. The performance of OPOs should be evaluated using a range of donation metrics.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets