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
. 2022 Dec 1:10:1067635.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1067635. eCollection 2022.

Analysis of content and online public responses to media articles that raise awareness of the opt-out system of consent to organ donation in England

Georgia Faherty  1 , Lorraine Williams  1 , Jane Noyes  2 , Leah Mc Laughlin  2 , Jennifer Bostock  1 , Nicholas Mays  1
Affiliations

Analysis of content and online public responses to media articles that raise awareness of the opt-out system of consent to organ donation in England

Georgia Faherty et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Preceded by a national media campaign, in May 2020, England switched to a soft opt-out system of organ donation which rests on the assumption that individuals meeting specific criteria have consented to organ donation unless they have expressed otherwise. We aimed to learn more about how the changes were communicated, how people responded and any discrepancies between key messages and how they were interpreted by the public.

Methods: Summative content analysis of 286 stories and related reader-generated comments in leading UK online news sources (April 2019 to May 2021). Further detailed thematic analysis of 21 articles with reader-generated content, complemented by thematic content analysis coding of all 286 stories.

Results: Most media coverage on both organ donation and the law change was positive, with little variation over time or between publications. The importance of organ donation, benefits of the law change, and emotive stories (often involving children) of those who had donated an organ described as "superheroes" or those who had received organs as benefiting from a "miracle" were frequently cited. In contrast, reader-generated comments were markedly more negative, for example, focusing on loss of individual freedom and lack of trust in the organ donation system. Commentators wished to be able to choose who their organs were donated to, were dismissive and blaming towards minority ethnic groups, including undermining legitimate worries about the compatibility of organ donation with religious beliefs and end of life cultural norms, understanding and acceptance of brain-stem death and systemic racism. Misinformation including use of inflammatory language was common.

Conclusion: The portrayal of donors and recipients as extraordinary is unlikely to help to normalise organ donation. Undermining legitimate concerns, in particular those from ethnic minorities, can alienate and encourage harmful misinformation in underrepresented groups. The discrepancies between the tone of the articles and the readers comments suggests a lack of trust across the public, health, policy and media outlets. Easily accessible, ongoing and tailored sources are needed to mitigate misinformation and disinformation and ensure key messages are better understood and accepted in order to realise the ambitions of soft opt-out organ donation policies.

Keywords: consent; media campaigns; media content analysis; organ donation; public opinion; soft opt-out.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search strategy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Organ donation and law change sentiment by publication.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Organ donation and law change sentiment over time weighted by annual views.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Tone of reader-generated comments—organ donation and law change.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. WHO . Donation and transplantation. WHO (2013). Available online at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/transplantation#tab=tab_1 (accessed February 11, 2020).
    1. Li AH, Lo M, Crawshaw JE, Dunnett AJ, Naylor KL, Garg AX, et al. . Interventions for increasing solid organ donor registration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2021) 4:CD10829. 10.1002/14651858.CD010829.pub2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Witjes M, Jansen NE, Van Der Hoeven JG, Abdo WF. Interventions aimed at healthcare professionals to increase the number of organ donors: a systematic review. Crit Care. (2019) 23:227. 10.1186/s13054-019-2509-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Organ Donation and Transplantation 2030: Meeting the Need A ten-year vision for organ donation and transplantation in the United Kingdom & Social Care . Available online at: https://www.odt.nhs.uk/odt-structures-and-standards/key-strategies/meeti... (accessed November 19, 2022).
    1. Niven J, Chalmers N. Opt out organ donation: A rapid evidence review. Health and Social Care Social Research. (2018). Available online at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/res... (accessed November 19, 2022).

Publication types