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

Steve John Philpot, Sarah Aranha, David V Pilcher and Michael Bailey

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 6, 1-14

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.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155778 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 55778&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0155778

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155778

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().