Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jun 20;11(6):e0155778.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155778. eCollection 2016.

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

Steve John Philpot  1   2   3 , Sarah Aranha  2 , David V Pilcher  1   2   4 , Michael Bailey  5
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Steve John Philpot et al. PLoS One. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Consort diagram of participation in the survey.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Level of discomfort and general attitudes of study participants.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Amount of information provided by the doctor.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Influence and persuasion by the doctor.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. ANZOD Registry, 2014 Annual Report, Chapter 7: Organ Waiting Lists. Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia. 2014. Available: http://www.anzdata.org.au. Accessed 28 Sept 2015.
    1. Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Annual Report 2014–15, September 2015. Available: http://www.donatelife.gov.au/sites/default/files/OTA_AR2015.pdf.
    1. Australian Organ and Tissue Authority DonateLife Audit Annual Report 2013. Available: http://www.donatelife.gov.au/sites/default/files/annual-report/.
    1. Siminoff LA, Gordon N, Hewlett J. Factors influencing families’ consent for donation of solid organs for transplantation. JAMA. 2001; 286(1): 71–79. - PubMed
    1. Pelletier M. The organ donor family member’s perception of stressful situations during the organ donation experience. J Adv Nursing. 1992; 17(1): 90–97. - PubMed

Publication types