IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v52y2001i6p853-861.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Browning, Colette J.
  • Thomas, Shane A.

Abstract

This paper is concerned with community values and preferences in organ transplantation allocation decisions. With recent trends in organ shortages, transplant teams face difficult allocation decisions amongst increasing numbers of "worthy" potential recipients. It is argued that the debate about these decisions ought to be informed in part by a systematic knowledge of prevailing community standards. A community sample of 238 adults (140 women and 98 men, with a mean age of 47.0 years) completed a questionnaire concerning which factors ought to affect recipient priority for transplantation. Longer waiting time, better prognosis, younger age and being a parent were the most frequently selected criteria for organ allocation decisions. The participants also rank ordered 16 potential recipients presented in the form of case scenarios in terms of priority for transplantation. The 16 case scenarios were constructed from a factorial combination of four variables: age of recipient (young vs old); the time the recipient had been on a waiting list (long vs short); recipient prognosis (excellent vs fair); and parental status (children vs no children). It was found that one case scenario involving a young parent with an excellent prognosis and long waiting time was ranked first by 75.2% of all participants. Analysis revealed that transplant recipient age and prognosis were the most influential factors in determining the priority rankings for organ allocation. The study has demonstrated that judgement and decision analysis procedures can be used to elicit community values and preferences about complex resource allocation decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Browning, Colette J. & Thomas, Shane A., 2001. "Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 853-861, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:52:y:2001:i:6:p:853-861
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00187-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208.
    2. Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Distributional Judgements in the Context of Economic Evaluation," Chapters,in: The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 38 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    4. Álvarez, Begoña & Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva, 2011. "Patients' self-interested preferences: Empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1317-1324, April.
    5. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    6. Pilar Abad Romero & Begoña Alvarez García & Eva Rodríguez Míguez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2006. "Social preferences measures and the quality of the job match for persons with disabilities," Hacienda Pública Española, IEF, vol. 179(4), pages 113-134, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:52:y:2001:i:6:p:853-861. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.