Dataset Information

Comparing organ donation decisions for next-of-kin versus the self: results of a national survey

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Intensive care audits point to family refusal as a major barrier to organ donation. In this study, we sought to understand refusal by accounting for the decision-maker’s mindset. This focused on: (1) how decisions compare when made on behalf of a relative (vs the self); and (2) confidence in decisions made for family members.

Design

Cross-sectional survey in Singapore.

Setting

Participants were recruited from community settings via door-to-door sampling and community eateries.

Participants

973 adults who qualified as organ donors in Singapore.

Results

Although 68.1% of participants were willing to donate their own organs, only 51.8% were willing to donate a relative’s organs. Using machine learning, we found that consistency was predicted by: (1) religion, and (2) fears about organ donation. Conversely, participants who were willing to donate their own organs but not their relative’s were less driven by these factors, and may instead have resorted to heuristics in decision-making. Finally, we observed how individuals were overconfident in their decision-making abilities: although 78% had never discussed organ donation with their relatives, the large majority expressed high confidence that they would respect their relatives’ wishes on death.

Conclusions

These findings underscore the distinct psychological processes involved when donation decisions are made for family members. Amidst a global shortage of organ donors, addressing the decision-maker’s mindset (eg, overconfidence, the use of heuristics) may be key to actualizing potential donors identified in intensive care units.

SUBMITTER: Liu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8596040 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundEuropean countries are increasingly harmonising their organ donation and transplantation policies. Although a growing number of nations are moving to presumed consent to deceased organ donation, no attempts have been made to harmonise policies on individual consent and the role of the family in the decision-making process. Little is known about public awareness of and attitudes towards the role of the family in their own country and European harmonisation on these health policy dimensions. To improve understanding of these issues, we examined what university students think about the role of the family in decision-making in deceased organ donation and about harmonising consent policies within Europe.MethodsUsing LimeSurvey© software, we conducted a comparative cross-sectional international survey of 2193 university students of health sciences and humanities/social sciences from Austria (339), Belgium (439), Denmark (230), Germany (424), Greece (159), Romania (190), Slovenia (190), and Spain (222).ResultsParticipants from opt-in countries may have a better awareness of the family's legal role than those from opt-out countries. Most respondents opposed the family veto, but they were more ambivalent towards the role of the family as a surrogate decision-maker. The majority of participants were satisfied with the family's legal role. However, those who were unsatisfied preferred to limit family involvement. Overall, participants were opposed to the idea of national sovereignty over consent policies. They favoured an opt-out policy harmonisation and were divided over opt-in. Their views on harmonisation of family involvement were consistent with their personal preferences.ConclusionsThere is overall division on whether families should have a surrogate role, and substantial opposition to granting them sole authority over decision-making. If European countries were to harmonise their policies on consent for organ donation, an opt-out system that grants families a surrogate decision-making role may enjoy the widest public support.