IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i11p6945-d832644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation

Author

Listed:
  • Amir Elalouf

    (Department of Management, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel)

Abstract

Medical advancement has increased the confidence in successful organ transplants in end-stage patients. As the waitlist of organ demand is multiplying, the organ allocation process is becoming more crucial. In this situation, a transparent and efficient organ allocation policy is required. This study evaluates the preferences of medical experts to substantial factors for allocating organs in different hypothetical scenarios. Twenty-five medical professionals with a significant role in organ allocation were interviewed individually. The interview questionnaire comprised demographic information, organ donation status, important organ allocation factors, public preference knowledge, and experts’ preferences in different hypothetical scenarios. Most medical experts rated the waiting time and prognosis as the most important, while the next of kin donor status and care and contribution to the well-being of others were the least important factors for organ allocation. In expert opinion, medical experts significantly considered public preferences for organ allocation in making their decisions. Altogether, experts prioritized waiting time over successful transplant, age, and donor status in the hypothetical scenarios. In parallel, less chance of finding another organ, donor status, and successful transplant were prioritized over age. Medical experts are the key stakeholders; therefore, their opinions are substantial in formulating an organ allocation policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Amir Elalouf, 2022. "Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6945-:d:832644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6945/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6945/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Shaw, Rebecca, 2004. "A note on a discussion group study of public preferences regarding priorities in the allocation of donor kidneys," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 31-36, April.
    2. Sahar Ahmadvand & Mir Saman Pishvaee, 2018. "An efficient method for kidney allocation problem: a credibility-based fuzzy common weights data envelopment analysis approach," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 587-603, December.
    3. Carina Oedingen & Tim Bartling & Axel C. Mühlbacher & Harald Schrem & Christian Krauth, 2019. "Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 475-489, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148, March.
    6. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2013. "Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 73-87, February.
    7. Al-Ebbini, Lina & Oztekin, Asil & Chen, Yao, 2016. "FLAS: Fuzzy lung allocation system for US-based transplantations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 1051-1065.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carina Oedingen & Tim Bartling & Axel C. Mühlbacher & Harald Schrem & Christian Krauth, 2019. "Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 475-489, October.
    2. Kargar, Bahareh & Pishvaee, Mir Saman & Jahani, Hamed & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2020. "Organ transportation and allocation problem under medical uncertainty: A real case study of liver transplantation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    7. Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2024. "Aversion to health inequality — Pure, income-related and income-caused," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    9. Derhami, Shahab & Smith, Alice E., 2017. "An integer programming approach for fuzzy rule-based classification systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 924-934.
    10. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    11. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2023. "Prioritized organ allocation rules under compatibility constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 403-427.
    12. Amir Ali Nasrollahzadeh & Amin Khademi & Maria E. Mayorga, 2018. "Real-Time Ambulance Dispatching and Relocation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 467-480, July.
    13. Gur, Yonatan & Iancu, Dan & Warnes, Xavier, 2020. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Research Papers 3813, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    15. Francisco Javier Santos Arteaga & Debora Di Caprio & David Cucchiari & Josep M Campistol & Federico Oppenheimer & Fritz Diekmann & Ignacio Revuelta, 2021. "Modeling patients as decision making units: evaluating the efficiency of kidney transplantation through data envelopment analysis," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 55-71, March.
    16. Baris Ata & Yichuan Ding & Stefanos Zenios, 2021. "An Achievable-Region-Based Approach for Kidney Allocation Policy Design with Endogenous Patient Choice," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 36-54, 1-2.
    17. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    18. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Sahar Ahmadvand & Mir Saman Pishvaee, 2018. "An efficient method for kidney allocation problem: a credibility-based fuzzy common weights data envelopment analysis approach," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 587-603, December.
    20. Turgay Ayer & Can Zhang & Anthony Bonifonte & Anne C. Spaulding & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2019. "Prioritizing Hepatitis C Treatment in U.S. Prisons," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 853-873, May.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6945-:d:832644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.