IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p341-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Don’t Throw Your Heart Away: Increased Transparency of Donor Utilization Practices in Transplant Center Report Cards Alters How Center Performance Is Evaluated

Author

Listed:
  • Alison E. Butler

    (Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Gretchen B. Chapman

    (Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

Abstract

Background Publicly available report cards for transplant centers emphasize posttransplant survival and obscure the fact that some centers reject many of the donor organs they are offered (reflecting a conservative donor acceptance strategy), while others accept a broader range of donor offers (reflecting an open donor acceptance strategy). Objective We assessed how the provision of salient information about donor acceptance practices and waitlist survival rates affected evaluation judgments of hospital report cards given by laypeople and medical trainees. Methods We tested 5 different report card formats across 4 online randomized experiments ( n 1 = 1,003, n 2 = 105, n 3 = 123, n 4 = 807) in the same hypothetical decision. The primary outcome variable was a binary choice between transplant hospitals (one with an open donor acceptance strategy and the other with a conservative donor acceptance strategy). Results Report cards featuring salient information about donor organ utilization rates (transplant outcomes categorized by quality of donor offers accepted) or overall survival rates (outcomes from both waitlist and transplanted patients) led lay participants (studies 1, 3, and 4) and medical trainees (study 2) to evaluate transplant centers with open donor acceptance strategies more favorably than centers with conservative strategies. Limitations Due to the nature of the decision, a hypothetical scenario was necessary for both ethical and practical reasons. Results may not generalize to transplant clinicians or patients faced with the decision of where to join the transplant waitlist. Conclusions These findings suggest that performance evaluations for transplant centers may vary significantly based not only on what outcome information is presented in report cards but also how the information is displayed.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison E. Butler & Gretchen B. Chapman, 2022. "Don’t Throw Your Heart Away: Increased Transparency of Donor Utilization Practices in Transplant Center Report Cards Alters How Center Performance Is Evaluated," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 341-351, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:341-351
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211038941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211038941
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211038941?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holly O. Witteman & Anne-Sophie Julien & Ruth Ndjaboue & Nicole L. Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Angela (Angie) Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2020. "What Helps People Make Values-Congruent Medical Decisions? Eleven Strategies Tested across 6 Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 266-278, April.
    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. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:341-351. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.