Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 52 (2001)
Issue (Month): 6 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
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)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.