Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Study protocol

Community Preferences for the Allocation & Donation of Organs - The PAraDOx Study

Authors: Kirsten Howard, Stephen Jan, John Rose, Steven Chadban, Richard DM Allen, Michelle Irving, Allison Tong, Germaine Wong, Jonathan C Craig, Alan Cass

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Transplantation is the treatment of choice for people with severe organ failure. However, demand substantially exceeds supply of suitable organs; consequently many people wait months, or years to receive an organ. Reasons for the chronic shortage of deceased organ donations are unclear; there appears to be no lack of 'in principle' public support for organ donation.

Methods/Design

The PAraDOx Study examines community preferences for organ donation policy in Australia. The aims are to 1) determine which factors influence decisions by individuals to offer their organs for donation and 2) determine the criteria by which the community deems the allocation of donor organs to be fair and equitable. Qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to assess community preferences for organ donation and allocation.
Focus group participants from the general community, aged between 18-80, will be purposively sampled to ensure a variety of cultural backgrounds and views on organ donation. Each focus group will include a ranking exercise using a modified nominal group technique. Focus groups of organ recipients, their families, and individuals on a transplant waiting list will also be conducted.
Using the qualitative work, a discrete choice study will be designed to quantitatively assess community preferences. Discrete choice methods are based on the premise that goods and services can be described in terms of a number of separate attributes. Respondents are presented with a series of choices where levels of attributes are varied, and a mathematical function is estimated to describe numerically the value respondents attach to different options. Two community surveys will be conducted in approximately 1000 respondents each to assess community preferences for organ donation and allocation. A mixed logit model will be used; model results will be expressed as parameter estimates (β) and the odds of choosing one option over an alternative. Trade-offs between attributes will also be calculated.

Discussion

By providing a better understanding of current community preferences in relation to organ donation and allocation, the PAraDOx study will highlight options for firstly, increasing the rate of organ donation and secondly, allow for more transparent and equitable policies in relation to organ allocation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference McDonald S, Chang S, Excell L: ANZDATA Registry Report 2006. 2006, Adelaide, South Australia: Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry McDonald S, Chang S, Excell L: ANZDATA Registry Report 2006. 2006, Adelaide, South Australia: Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry
3.
go back to reference Mathew T, Faull R, Snelling P: The shortage of kidneys for transplantation in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 2005, 182 (5): 204-5.PubMed Mathew T, Faull R, Snelling P: The shortage of kidneys for transplantation in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 2005, 182 (5): 204-5.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Council of Europe: Newsletter: Transplant 2006. International figures on organ donation and transplantation - 2005. 2006, Spain: Council of Europe Council of Europe: Newsletter: Transplant 2006. International figures on organ donation and transplantation - 2005. 2006, Spain: Council of Europe
5.
go back to reference Cass A, Chadban SJ, Craig JC, et al: The economic impact of end-stage kidney disease in Australia: Part I of the 'Study of the Economic Burden of Kidney and Urinary Tract Disease in Australia'. 2006, Kidney Health Australia Cass A, Chadban SJ, Craig JC, et al: The economic impact of end-stage kidney disease in Australia: Part I of the 'Study of the Economic Burden of Kidney and Urinary Tract Disease in Australia'. 2006, Kidney Health Australia
6.
go back to reference National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation: Mid-Term Report for the Minister for Health and Ageing. 2007, Canberra, ACT: Department of Health and Ageing National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation: Mid-Term Report for the Minister for Health and Ageing. 2007, Canberra, ACT: Department of Health and Ageing
7.
go back to reference Hamm D, Tizzard J: Presumed consent for organ donation is an ethical and effective way of dealing with organ donation shortages. BMJ. 2008, 336: 230-10.1136/bmj.39475.498090.80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hamm D, Tizzard J: Presumed consent for organ donation is an ethical and effective way of dealing with organ donation shortages. BMJ. 2008, 336: 230-10.1136/bmj.39475.498090.80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Abadie A, Gay S: The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study. Journal of Health Economics. 2006, 25 (4): 599-620. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.003.CrossRefPubMed Abadie A, Gay S: The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study. Journal of Health Economics. 2006, 25 (4): 599-620. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.003.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Friedman EA, Friedman AL: Payment for donor kidneys: pros and cons. Kidney International. 2006, 69 (6): 960-2. 10.1038/sj.ki.5000262.CrossRefPubMed Friedman EA, Friedman AL: Payment for donor kidneys: pros and cons. Kidney International. 2006, 69 (6): 960-2. 10.1038/sj.ki.5000262.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Kranenburg L, Schram A, Zuidema W, et al: Public Survey of Financial Incentives for Kidney Donation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007 Kranenburg L, Schram A, Zuidema W, et al: Public Survey of Financial Incentives for Kidney Donation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007
15.
go back to reference Boulware LE, Troll MU, Wang NY, Powe NR: Public attitudes toward incentives for organ donation: a national study of different racial/ethnic and income groups. American Journal of Transplantation. 2006, 6 (11): 2774-85. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01532.x.CrossRefPubMed Boulware LE, Troll MU, Wang NY, Powe NR: Public attitudes toward incentives for organ donation: a national study of different racial/ethnic and income groups. American Journal of Transplantation. 2006, 6 (11): 2774-85. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01532.x.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Chadban S, McDonald S, Livingston B, Excell L: Transplant waiting list. Edited by: McDonald S, Excell L. 2006, Adelaide, South Australia.: Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, 103-24. ANZDATA Registry Report 2006 (To Dec 31 2005) Chadban S, McDonald S, Livingston B, Excell L: Transplant waiting list. Edited by: McDonald S, Excell L. 2006, Adelaide, South Australia.: Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, 103-24. ANZDATA Registry Report 2006 (To Dec 31 2005)
17.
go back to reference Davies C, Barnett E, Wetherall MS: Citizens at the Centre. Deliberative Participation in Healthcare Decisions. 2006, London: The Policy Press Davies C, Barnett E, Wetherall MS: Citizens at the Centre. Deliberative Participation in Healthcare Decisions. 2006, London: The Policy Press
18.
go back to reference McBride T, Korczak V: Community consultation and engagement in health care reform. Australian Health Review. 2007, 31 (Suppl 1): S13-S15.CrossRefPubMed McBride T, Korczak V: Community consultation and engagement in health care reform. Australian Health Review. 2007, 31 (Suppl 1): S13-S15.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Mooney GH, Blackwell S: Whose health service is it anyway? Community values in healthcare. Med J Aust. 2004, 180 (2): 76-8.PubMed Mooney GH, Blackwell S: Whose health service is it anyway? Community values in healthcare. Med J Aust. 2004, 180 (2): 76-8.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008, 26 (8): 661-77. 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008, 26 (8): 661-77. 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Bridges JF, Kinter E, Kidane L, et al: Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: Recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970-2007. The Patient - Patient Centred Outcomes Research. 2008, 1 (4): 273-82. 10.2165/1312067-200801040-00009.CrossRef Bridges JF, Kinter E, Kidane L, et al: Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: Recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970-2007. The Patient - Patient Centred Outcomes Research. 2008, 1 (4): 273-82. 10.2165/1312067-200801040-00009.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Marshall DA, Bridges JF, Hauber AB, et al: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. The Patient - Patient Centred Outcomes Research. 2010, 3 (4): 249-56. 10.2165/11539650-000000000-00000.CrossRef Marshall DA, Bridges JF, Hauber AB, et al: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. The Patient - Patient Centred Outcomes Research. 2010, 3 (4): 249-56. 10.2165/11539650-000000000-00000.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall DA, et al: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health--a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value in Health. 2011, 14 (4): 5- Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall DA, et al: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health--a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value in Health. 2011, 14 (4): 5-
25.
go back to reference Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, Young T, Longworth L: Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy. 2005, 4 (4): 249-55. 10.2165/00148365-200504040-00007.CrossRef Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, Young T, Longworth L: Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy. 2005, 4 (4): 249-55. 10.2165/00148365-200504040-00007.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ratcliffe J: Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Economics. 2000, 9 (2): 137-48. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<137::AID-HEC489>3.0.CO;2-1.CrossRefPubMed Ratcliffe J: Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Economics. 2000, 9 (2): 137-48. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<137::AID-HEC489>3.0.CO;2-1.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Drennan V, Walters K, Lenihan P, et al: Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Family Practice. 2007, 24 (5): 454-60. 10.1093/fampra/cmm034.CrossRefPubMed Drennan V, Walters K, Lenihan P, et al: Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Family Practice. 2007, 24 (5): 454-60. 10.1093/fampra/cmm034.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, et al: The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. British Journal of Cancer. 2007, 96 (6): 875-81. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603662.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, et al: The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. British Journal of Cancer. 2007, 96 (6): 875-81. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603662.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, et al: Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: the rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes. Arthritis care & research. 2010, 62 (5): 647-56. 10.1002/acr.20151.CrossRef Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, et al: Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: the rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes. Arthritis care & research. 2010, 62 (5): 647-56. 10.1002/acr.20151.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory - A practical guide through Qualitative anaylsis. 2006, London: Sage Publications Ltd Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory - A practical guide through Qualitative anaylsis. 2006, London: Sage Publications Ltd
31.
go back to reference Huber J, Zwerina K: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice design. Journal of Marketing Research. 1996, XXXIII: 307-17.CrossRef Huber J, Zwerina K: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice design. Journal of Marketing Research. 1996, XXXIII: 307-17.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Sandor Z, Wedel M: Profile construction in experimental designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science. 2002, 21 (4): 455-75. 10.1287/mksc.21.4.455.131.CrossRef Sandor Z, Wedel M: Profile construction in experimental designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science. 2002, 21 (4): 455-75. 10.1287/mksc.21.4.455.131.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH: Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. 2005, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1CrossRef Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH: Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. 2005, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated Choice Methods - Analysis and Application. 2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated Choice Methods - Analysis and Application. 2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Hensher DA, Greene WH: Mixed logit models: state of practice. Transportation. 2003, 30 (2): 133-76. 10.1023/A:1022558715350.CrossRef Hensher DA, Greene WH: Mixed logit models: state of practice. Transportation. 2003, 30 (2): 133-76. 10.1023/A:1022558715350.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Community Preferences for the Allocation & Donation of Organs - The PAraDOx Study
Authors
Kirsten Howard
Stephen Jan
John Rose
Steven Chadban
Richard DM Allen
Michelle Irving
Allison Tong
Germaine Wong
Jonathan C Craig
Alan Cass
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-386

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

BMC Public Health 1/2011 Go to the issue