Author
Listed:
- Steve John Philpot
- Sarah Aranha
- David V Pilcher
- Michael Bailey
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.
Suggested Citation
Steve John Philpot & Sarah Aranha & David V Pilcher & Michael Bailey, 2016.
"Randomised, Double Blind, Controlled Trial of the Provision of Information about the Benefits of Organ Donation during a Family Donation Conversation,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0155778
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155778
Download full text from publisher
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:plo:pone00:0155778. 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.
We have no bibliographic 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.