Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice

Carina Oedingen (), Tim Bartling, Axel C. Mühlbacher, Harald Schrem and Christian Krauth
Additional contact information
Carina Oedingen: Hannover Medical School
Tim Bartling: Hannover Medical School
Axel C. Mühlbacher: Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management
Harald Schrem: Medical University Graz
Christian Krauth: Hannover Medical School

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2019, vol. 12, issue 5, No 4, 475-489

Abstract: Abstract Background Solid organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for organ failure, but donor organs are a scarce resource because of a large mismatch between supply and demand. This scarcity leads to an ethical dilemma, forcing priority setting in organ allocation to individual patients. Little is known about public preferences regarding priority setting in organ allocation. A systematic review was performed to review the existing evidence and provide an overview of the criteria and criterion levels in regard to ethical aspects of distributive justice. Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO and PsycINFO databases were searched for literature published between January 2000 and December 2018. Only original studies were selected. The criteria were identified, extracted and grouped into a self-developed matrix according to the principles of distributive justice to ascertain public preferences. Results Overall, 9645 references were identified, and 15 studies were included. In total, 27 criteria clustered in seven theory-guided groups could be identified: “equality”, “effectiveness/benefit”, “medical urgency”, “own fault”, “value for society”, “medical background” and “sociodemographic status”. It was shown that not only a single principle but rather a combination of principles are relevant for the allocation. Therefore, a public propensity towards a rational utilitarian ethical model of allocation could be recognised. Conclusions The general public not only wanted to allocate organs mainly to those with a good probability of having a successful transplantation but also wanted to consider those who need an organ most urgently to prevent fatal consequences, resulting in unclear trade-offs between effectiveness/benefit and medical urgency. Public preferences for organ allocation are therefore complex, and data regarding clear trade-offs are still lacking.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00363-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00363-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00363-0

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().