Healthcare professional and community preferences in deceased donor kidney allocation: A best-worst scaling survey.
clinical research
donors and donation
ethics
ethics and public policy
kidney transplantation
nephrology
organ allocation
organ procurement and allocation
Journal
American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons
ISSN: 1600-6143
Titre abrégé: Am J Transplant
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100968638
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
revised:
09
11
2021
received:
08
03
2021
accepted:
13
11
2021
pubmed:
29
11
2021
medline:
20
4
2022
entrez:
28
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Deceased donor kidneys are a scarce community resource; therefore, the principles underpinning organ allocation should reflect societal values. This study aimed to elicit community and healthcare professional preferences for principles guiding the allocation of kidneys from deceased donors and compare how these differed across the populations. A best-worst scaling survey including 29 principles in a balanced incomplete block design was conducted among a representative sample of the general community (n = 1237) and healthcare professionals working in transplantation (n = 206). Sequential best-worst multinomial logistic regression was used to derive scaled preference scores (PS) (range 0-100). Thematic analysis of free text responses was performed. Five of the six most valued principles among members of the community related to equity, including priority for the longest waiting (PS 100), difficult to transplant (PS 94.5) and sickest (PS 93.9), and equitable access for men and women (PS 94.0), whereas the top four principles for healthcare professional focused on maximizing utility (PS 89.9-100). Latent class analysis identified unmeasured class membership among community members. There are discordant views between community members and healthcare professionals. These should be considered in the design, evaluation, and implementation of deceased donor kidney allocation protocols.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34839582
doi: 10.1111/ajt.16898
pii: S1600-6135(22)08141-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
886-897Informations de copyright
© 2021 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
Références
Neuberger J, Thomas G. When the law meets organ transplantation: the experience from the United Kingdom. Transplantation. 2011;92(3):262-264.
Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. The Lancet. 2009;373(9661):423-431. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9
Emanuel EJ, Persad G, Upshur R, et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):2049-2055. doi:10.1056/nejmsb2005114
Organisation WH. Social determinants of health; 2021. https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health. Accessed September 3, 2021.
Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):213-236. doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00214-7
Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151-1166. doi:10.1111/hex.12090
Tong A, Howard K, Jan S, et al. Community preferences for the allocation of solid organs for transplantation: a systematic review. Transplantation. 2010;89(7):796-805.
Oedingen C, Bartling T, Mühlbacher AC, Schrem H, Krauth C. Systematic review of public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: principles of distributive justice. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2019;12(5):475-489. doi:10.1007/s40271-019-00363-0
Tong A, Howard K, Wong G, et al. Nephrologists’ perspectives on waitlisting and allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplant. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(5):704-716. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.05.029
Australian Population Census: Profile Cat No 2001.0 [Internet] (2016 [cited 2020 Aug 1]).
Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. journal article. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):1-14. doi:10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x
Clark MD, Szczepura A, Gumber A, Howard K, Moro D, Morton RL. Measuring trade-offs in nephrology: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(2):348-355.
Lancsar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, Currie G, Burgess L. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76:74-82. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.007
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145-172. doi:10.1002/hec.1697
Evangelidis N, Tong A, Howell M, et al. International survey to establish prioritized outcomes for trials in people with Coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(11):1612-1621. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004584
McFadden D. Economic choices. Am Econ Rev. 2001;91(3):351-378. doi:10.1257/aer.91.3.351
Louviere J, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated choice 1983.pdf. J Mark Res. 1983;XX:350-367.
Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259-267.
Irving MJ, Tong A, Jan S, et al. Community preferences for the allocation of deceased donor organs for transplantation: a focus group study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(8):2187-2193. doi:10.1093/ndt/gft208
Howard K, Jan S, Rose JM, et al. Preferences for policy options for deceased organ donation for transplantation: a discrete choice experiment. Transplantation. 2016;100(5):1136-1148. doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000000940
Howard K, Jan S, Rose JM, et al. Community preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: a discrete choice study. Transplantation. 2014;2015(99):560-567.
Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis, 2nd ed. Cambridge Books; 2016.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. (Practical Application). Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-677.
Zhou M, Thayer WM, Bridges JFP. Using latent class analysis to model preference heterogeneity in health: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(2):175-187. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0575-4
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Clayton PA, McDonald SP, Snyder JJ, Salkowski N, Chadban SJ. External validation of the estimated posttransplant survival score for allocation of deceased donor kidneys in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2014;14(8):1922-1926. doi:10.1111/ajt.12761
Ling JEH, Fink M, Westall G, et al. Risk indices in deceased-donor organ allocation for transplantation: review from an Australian perspective. Transplantation. 2019;103(5):875-889.
Sypek MP, Hughes P, Holdsworth R, Kanellis J, McDonald S, Clayton PD. Insights into the labeling effect of kidney donor performance index reporting: the Australian experience. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(3):870-878. doi:10.1111/ajt.15656
Transplant Society of Australia and New Zealand. A guide to the Australian Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) death-censored graft survival; 2016. Available from https://www.tsanz.com.au/standalonepages/documents/AustralianKDPIINFOv1.0.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed July, 7 2020.
Transplant Society of Australia and New Zealand. Terms of reference for the renal transplant advisory committee (RTAC). https://www.tsanz.com.au/downloads/201210thSeptember-RTACTORs.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed June 22, 2020.
Hall AE, Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher RW, Fradgley EA, Proietto AM, Roos I. Consumer input into health care: time for a new active and comprehensive model of consumer involvement. Health Expect. 2018;21(4):707-713. doi:10.1111/hex.12665
Lavee J, Ashkenazi T, Gurman G, Steinberg D. A new law for allocation of donor organs in Israel. The Lancet. 2010;375(9720):1131-1133. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61795-5
Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730-741. doi:10.1002/hec.1739
Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453-458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
Gong J, Zhang Y, Yang Z, Huang Y, Feng J, Zhang W. The framing effect in medical decision-making: a review of the literature. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2013;18(6):645-653. doi:10.1080/13548506.2013.766352
National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethical guidelines for organ transplantation from deceased donors. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e76. Published 2016. Accessed December 10, 2017.