IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v17y2015i2p208-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision‐making regarding organ donation in Korean adults: A grounded‐theory study

Author

Listed:
  • Eun Ja Yeun
  • Young Mi Kwon
  • Jung A Kim

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the hidden patterns of behavior leading toward the decision to donate organs. Thirteen registrants at the Association for Organ Sharing in Korea were recruited. Data were collected using in‐depth interview and the interview transcripts were analyzed using Glaserian grounded‐theory methodology. The main problem of participants was “body attachment” and the core category (management process) was determined to be “pursuing life.” The theme consisted of four phases, which were: “hesitating,” “investigating,” “releasing,” and “re‐discovering. ” Therefore, to increase organ donations, it is important to find a strategy that will create positive attitudes about organ donation through education and public relations. These results explain and provide a deeper understanding of the main problem that Korean people have about organ donation and their management of decision‐making processes. These findings can help care providers to facilitate the decision‐making process and respond to public needs while taking into account the sociocultural context within which decisions are made.

Suggested Citation

  • Eun Ja Yeun & Young Mi Kwon & Jung A Kim, 2015. "Decision‐making regarding organ donation in Korean adults: A grounded‐theory study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 208-213, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:17:y:2015:i:2:p:208-213
    DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12163
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/nhs.12163?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. Li, Danyang & Hawley, Zackary & Schnier, Kurt, 2013. "Increasing organ donation via changes in the default choice or allocation rule," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1117-1129.
    2. Fugen Goz & Mustafa Goz & Medıne Erkan, 2006. "Knowledge and attitudes of medical, nursing, dentistry and health technician students towards organ donation: a pilot study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(11), pages 1371-1375, November.
    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. 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.
    2. Schwettmann, Lars, 2015. "Decision solution, data manipulation and trust: The (un-)willingness to donate organs in Germany in critical times," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(7), pages 980-989.
    3. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2016. "Organ donation in the lab: Preferences and votes on the priority rule," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 139-149.
    4. Marzena Mikla & Anna Maria Cybulska & Daria Schneider-Matyka & Antonio Ríos & Mariusz Panczyk & Artur Kotwas & Beata Karakiewicz & Elżbieta Grochans, 2023. "A Multicentre Study of the Attitude of Medical Students towards Organ Donation and Transplantation in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Löfgren, Åsa & Nordblom, Katarina, 2020. "A theoretical framework of decision making explaining the mechanisms of nudging," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Bonander, Carl & Ekman, Mats & Jakobsson, Niklas, 2022. "Vaccination nudges: A study of pre-booked COVID-19 vaccinations in Sweden," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    7. Wilson, Nicholas, 2018. "Altruism in preventive health behavior: At-scale evidence from the HIV/AIDS pandemic," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 119-129.
    8. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019. "How much priority bonus should be given to registered organ donors? An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 367-378.
    9. Selina Schulze Spüntrup, 2023. "Does Implementing Opt-Out Solve The Organ Shortage Problem? Evidence from a Synthetic Control Approach," ifo Working Paper Series 403, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    10. Carl Bonander & Mats Ekman & Niklas Jakobsson, 2023. "When do default nudges work?," Oxford Open Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2, pages 391-425.
    11. Alekseev, Aleksandr & Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2017. "Experimental methods: When and why contextual instructions are important," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 48-59.
    12. Ben Brewer, 2020. "Click it or give it: Increased seat belt law enforcement and organ donation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1400-1421, November.
    13. Niu, Xiaofei & Li, Jianbiao, 2020. "Incentivizing organ donation by swearing an oath: The role of signature and ritual," EconStor Preprints 203243, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, revised 2020.
    14. Donal McGlade & Carol McClenahan & Barbara Pierscionek, 2014. "Pro-Donation Behaviours of Nursing Students from the Four Countries of the UK," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-6, March.
    15. Song-Hee Kim & Jordan Tong & Carol Peden, 2020. "Admission Control Biases in Hospital Unit Capacity Management: How Occupancy Information Hurdles and Decision Noise Impact Utilization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5151-5170, November.
    16. Li, Danyang, 2016. "Effect of persuasive messages on organ donation decisions: An experimental test," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 150-159.
    17. Denvil Duncan & Danyang Li, 2018. "Liar Liar: Experimental Evidence of the Effect of Confirmation‐Reports on Dishonesty," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(3), pages 742-770, January.
    18. Elinder, Mikael & Erixson, Oscar & Öhman, Mattias, 2023. "Cognitive ability, health policy, and the dynamics of COVID-19 vaccination," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2022. "Remedying adverse selection in donor-priority rule using freeze period: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 384-407.
    20. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Erte Xiao, 2019. "Competing by Default: A New Way to Break the Glass Ceiling," Monash Economics Working Papers 04-18, Monash University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:nuhsci:v:17:y:2015:i:2:p:208-213. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1442-2018 .

    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.