Investigating the Effects of Threatening Language, Message Framing, and Reactance in Opt-Out Organ Donation Campaigns.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Under opt-out organ donation policies, individuals are automatically considered to have agreed to donate their organs in the absence of a recorded opt-out decision. Growing evidence suggests that the language used within organ donation campaigns influences donor intentions and decision-making.Purpose
As awareness campaigns to promote opt-out consent in the UK are ongoing, the objectives of this study were to investigate the effect of language and message framing used in opt-out organ donation campaigns on donor intentions and psychological reactance.Methods
Individuals from Scotland and England (N = 1,350) completed this online experiment. Participants were randomized to view one of four messages, designed in the format of a newspaper article, which described the upcoming opt-out system. This followed a 2 × 2 design whereby the degree of threatening language (high threat vs. low threat) and message framing (loss vs. gain) of the newspaper article was experimentally manipulated. Measures of intention (pre-exposure and postexposure) and postmessage reactance (threat to freedom and anger and counter-arguing) were obtained.Results
A mixed analysis of variance revealed a significant Group × Time interaction on donor intentions; post hoc analysis revealed that intentions significantly decreased for individuals exposed to the High threat × Loss frame article but significantly increased for those exposed to the High threat × Gain frame article.Conclusions
In campaigns to promote opt-out legislation, high-threat language combined with loss-frame messages should be avoided. If high-threat language is used, gain-frame messaging that highlights the benefits of organ donation should also be incorporated.
SUBMITTER: Miller J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8691393 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and purposeChanges to deceased organ donation policy in the USA, including opt-out and priority systems, have been proposed to increase registration and donation rates. To study attitudes towards such policies, we surveyed healthcare students to assess support for opt-out and priority systems and reasons for support or opposition.MethodsWe investigated associations with supporting opt-out, including organ donation knowledge, altruism, trust in the healthcare system, prioritising autonomy and participants' evaluation of the moral severity of incorrectly assuming consent in opt-in systems ('opt-in error') or opt-out systems ('opt-out error'), by conducting an online survey among healthcare students at a large academic institution.ResultsOf 523 respondents, 86% supported opt-out, including 53% who strongly supported the policy. The most popular reason for supporting opt-out was the potential for increased donation rates, followed by convenience for those not registered but willing to donate. The most popular reason for opposing opt-out was the belief that presuming consent is morally wrong. Those strongly supporting opt-out viewed the opt-in error as more morally unacceptable, and had higher knowledge and altruism scores. Those opposing opt-out viewed the opt-out error as more unacceptable, and had higher autonomy scores. 48% of respondents supported priority within opt-in systems; 31% supported priority in opt-out.ConclusionsThere is strong support for opt-out organ donation among healthcare students, influenced by both practical and moral considerations.
| S-EPMC8651801 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5741414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives To increase postmortem organ donation rates, several countries are adopting an opt-out (presumed consent) policy, meaning that individuals are deemed donors unless they expressly refused so. Although opt-out countries tend to have higher donation rates, there is no conclusive evidence that this is caused by the policy itself. The main objective of this study is to better assess the direct impact of consent policy defaults per se on deceased organ recovery rates when considering the role of the family in the decision-making process. This study does not take into account any indirect effects of defaults, such as potential psychological and behavioural effects on individuals and their relatives. Design Based on previous work regarding consent policies, we created a conceptual model of the decision-making process for deceased organ recovery that included any scenario that could be directly influenced by opt-in or opt-out policies. We then applied this model to internationally published data of the consent process to determine how frequently policy defaults could apply. Main outcome measures We measure the direct impact that opt-in and opt-out policies have per se on deceased organ recovery. Results Our analysis shows that opt-in and opt-out have strictly identical outcomes in eight out of nine situations. They only differ when neither the deceased nor the family have expressed a preference and defaults therefore apply. The direct impact of consent policy defaults is typically circumscribed to a range of 0%–5% of all opportunities for organ recovery. Our study also shows that the intervention of the family improves organ retrieval under opt-in but hinders it under opt-out. Conclusions This study may warn policy makers that, by emphasising the need to introduce presumed consent to increase organ recovery rates, they might be overestimating the influence of the default and underestimating the power granted to families.
| S-EPMC9462118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWales introduced a soft opt-out organ donation system on 1st December 2015 with the aim of improving consent rates. In the first 18 months consent rates improved but the difference could not solely be attributed to the soft opt-out system when compared with similar improvements in consent rates in other UK nations.MethodsWe conducted an 18 month post-intervention qualitative process evaluation involving 88 family members of 60/211 potential organ donor cases, and 19 professionals. Views and experiences of Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation who implemented the new system and family members who were involved in decision making were collected to see how their respective behaviours impacted on implementation. Data collection included interviews, focus groups and qualitative questionnaire data.ResultsImplementation was considered a success by Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation. The bespoke retraining programme and responsive approach to addressing initial implementation issues were identified as examples of best practice. Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation were valued by family members. Six implementation issues had an impact on consent rates - the media campaign had gaps, the system was more complex, challenges in changing professional behaviours, inability to obtain the required standard of evidence from family members to overturn a donation decision, increased complexity of consent processes, and additional health systems issues.ConclusionThis is the first comprehensive process evaluation of implementing a soft opt-out system of organ donation. Specific elements of good implementation practice (such as investment in the retraining programme and the responsiveness of Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation and managers to feedback) were identified. The key message is that despite retraining, nursing practice did not radically change overnight to accommodate the new soft opt-out system. Policy makers and health service managers should not assume that nurses simply need more time to implement the soft-out as intended. Additional responsive modification of processes, ongoing training and support is required to help with implementation as originally intended. Scotland, England and the Netherlands are introducing soft opt-out systems. There is an opportunity to learn from initial implementation in Wales, by acknowledging gaps, good practice and opportunities to further improve processes and nursing practices.
| S-EPMC6591913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the short-term impact of a soft opt-out organ donation system on consent rates and donor numbers.DesignBefore and after observational study using bespoke routinely collected data.SettingNational Health Service Blood and Transplant.Participants205 potential organ donor cases in Wales.InterventionsThe Act and implementation strategy.Primary and secondary outcomesConsent rates at 18 months post implementation compared with 3 previous years, and organ donor numbers 21 months before and after implementation. Changes in organ donor register activity post implementation for 18 months.ResultsThe consent rate for all modes of consent was 61.0% (125/205), showing a recovery from the dip to 45.8% in 2014/2015. 22.4% (46/205) were deemed consented donors: consent rate 60.8% (28/46). Compared with the 3 years before the switch there was a significant difference in Welsh consent rates (?2 p value=0.009). Over the same time period, rest of the UK consent rates also significantly increased from 58.6% (5256/8969) to 63.1% (2913/4614) (?2 p value<0.0001), therefore the Wales increase cannot be attributed to the Welsh legislation change. Deceased donors did not increase: 101 compared with 104. Organ donation registration increased from 34% to 38% with 6% registering to opt-out.ConclusionThis is the first rigorous initial evaluation with bespoke data collected on all cases. The longer-term impact on consent rates and donor numbers is unclear. Concerns about a potential backlash and mass opting out were not realised. The move to a soft opt-out system has not resulted in a step change in organ donation behaviour, but can be seen as the first step of a longer journey. Policymakers should not assume that soft opt-out systems by themselves simply need more time to have a meaningful effect. Ongoing interventions to further enhance implementation and the public's understanding of organ donation are needed to reach the 2020 target of 80% consent rates. Further longitudinal monitoring is required.
| S-EPMC6500329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In May 2020, England implemented soft 'opt-out' or 'deemed consent' for deceased donation with the intention of raising consent rates. However, this coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, making it difficult to assess the early impact of the law change. Wales and Scotland changed their organ donation legislation to implement soft opt-out systems in 2015 and 2021 respectively. This study provides a descriptive analysis of changes in consent and transplant rates for deceased organ donation in England, Scotland and Wales. Logistic regression and descriptive trend analysis were employed to assess the probability of a patient who died in critical care becoming a donor, and to report consent rates using data, respectively, from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) in England from 1 April 2014 to 30 September 2021, and from the Potential Donor Audit for England, Scotland and Wales from April 2010 to June 2023. The number of eligible donors in April-June 2020 were 56.5%, 59.3% and 57.6% lower in England, Scotland and Wales relative to April-June 2019 (pre-pandemic). By April-June 2023, the number of eligible donors had recovered to 87.4%, 64.2% and 110.3%, respectively, of their levels in 2019. The consent rate in England, Scotland and Wales reduced from 68.3%, 63.0% and 63.6% in April-June 2019 to 63.2%, 60.5% and 56.3% in April-June 2023. While the UK organ donation system shows signs of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of eligible potential donors and consent rates remain below their pre-pandemic levels.
| S-EPMC11290620 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8176333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreceded by a national media campaign, in May 2020, England switched to a soft opt-out system of organ donation which rests on the assumption that individuals meeting specific criteria have consented to organ donation unless they have expressed otherwise. We aimed to learn more about how the changes were communicated, how people responded and any discrepancies between key messages and how they were interpreted by the public.MethodsSummative content analysis of 286 stories and related reader-generated comments in leading UK online news sources (April 2019 to May 2021). Further detailed thematic analysis of 21 articles with reader-generated content, complemented by thematic content analysis coding of all 286 stories.ResultsMost media coverage on both organ donation and the law change was positive, with little variation over time or between publications. The importance of organ donation, benefits of the law change, and emotive stories (often involving children) of those who had donated an organ described as "superheroes" or those who had received organs as benefiting from a "miracle" were frequently cited. In contrast, reader-generated comments were markedly more negative, for example, focusing on loss of individual freedom and lack of trust in the organ donation system. Commentators wished to be able to choose who their organs were donated to, were dismissive and blaming towards minority ethnic groups, including undermining legitimate worries about the compatibility of organ donation with religious beliefs and end of life cultural norms, understanding and acceptance of brain-stem death and systemic racism. Misinformation including use of inflammatory language was common.ConclusionThe portrayal of donors and recipients as extraordinary is unlikely to help to normalise organ donation. Undermining legitimate concerns, in particular those from ethnic minorities, can alienate and encourage harmful misinformation in underrepresented groups. The discrepancies between the tone of the articles and the readers comments suggests a lack of trust across the public, health, policy and media outlets. Easily accessible, ongoing and tailored sources are needed to mitigate misinformation and disinformation and ensure key messages are better understood and accepted in order to realise the ambitions of soft opt-out organ donation policies.
| S-EPMC9751921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives To overcome the shortage of organ donors, Scotland and England are introducing an opt-out organ donor registration system in 2020. This means individuals will be automatically considered to consent for donation unless they actively opt-out of the register. Research has found that emotional barriers play a key role in donor decisions under opt-in legislation, yet little is known about factors that influence donor decisions under opt-out consent. Our objectives were to investigate attitudes towards organ donation and opt-out consent from individuals who plan to opt-out, and to explore the reasons why they plan to opt-out. Design Qualitative interview study. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 individuals from Scotland (n = 14) and England (n = 1) who self-reported the intention to opt-out of the register following the legislative change to opt-out. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Three main themes were identified: (1) consent versus coercion, which describes the perception of freedom of choice under an opt-in system and fears of 'government interference' and threatened autonomy under opt-out, (2) self-protection, encompassing fears of medical mistrust, bodily integrity concerns, and apprehension regarding the recipient selection process, and lastly, (3) 'riddled with pitfalls', which includes the notion that opt-out consent may increase susceptibility of stigma and reproach when registering an opt-out decision. Conclusions This study reinforces existing opt-in literature surrounding medical mistrust and bodily integrity concerns. A threat to one's autonomous choice and heightened reactance arising from perceptions of unwarranted government control have emerged as novel barriers. Statement of contribution What is already known about this subject? Although around 90% of individuals in the United Kingdom support organ donation, just 40% are actively registered as donors. As part of measures to improve rates of organ transplantation, Scotland and England are moving to an opt-out organ donation consent system in 2020. Existing research has shown that feelings and emotions are important factors that influence donor relevant decisions under the current opt-in system, but little research has explored potential deterrents under the new plans for opt-out consent. Minimizing the number of people opting out of the donor register is key to ensure sustained rates of transplantation. What does this study add? This study explored why people plan to opt-out of the new system in Scotland and England. Medical mistrust and bodily integrity concerns remain as salient barriers under opt-out laws. Fears of unwarranted government control and a perceived threat to one's freedom of choice emerged as a novel barrier.
| S-EPMC7216962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is a severe shortage of donor organs globally. There is growing interest in understanding how a 'soft opt-out' organ donation system could help bridge the supply and demand gap for donor organs. This research aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of implementing a 'soft opt-out' organ donation system for kidney donation.MethodsA decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental costs from a health system's perspective, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and death averted of people who have kidney failure, comparing a 'soft opt-out' organ donation system to an 'opt-in' system. This study analysed three scenarios where the 'soft opt-out' system generated a 20%, 30%, and 40% increase in deceased organ donation rates over 20 years. A 5-year time horizon was adopted for the budget impact analysis.ResultsA 20% increase in organ donation rates could have a cost saving of 650 million Australian dollars (A$) and a 10,400-QALY gain. A 20% increase would avert more than 1500 deaths, while a 40% increase would avert 3200 deaths over a time horizon of 20 years. Over the first 5 years, a 20% increase would have a net saving of A$53 million, increasing to A$106 million if the donation rate increases by 40%.ConclusionA 'soft opt-out' organ donation system would return a cost saving for the healthcare system, a net gain in QALYs, and prevention of a significant number of deaths. Advantageous budgetary impact is important, but understanding the aversion for a 'soft opt-out' system in Australia is also important and remains a priority for further research.
| S-EPMC9385789 | biostudies-literature