Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments.
Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026040
复制
发表时间：
2018-10-17
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Krauth C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oedingen C;Bartling T;Krauth C
器官移植是严重器官衰竭患者的首选治疗方法。然而，捐赠器官是一种稀缺资源，导致供需之间严重不匹配。因此，确定优先次序导致了如何分配这些稀缺器官以及谁应被视为有资格获得合适器官的两难境地。为了改善移植医学中的供需不匹配，本研究探讨了不同利益相关者（公众，医疗专业人员和患者）的偏好分配供体器官移植在德国。其目的是：（1）确定与稀缺捐赠器官分配相关的标准和偏好;（2）比较三个目标群体之间的结果，以制定卫生政策战略。我们概述了离散选择实验的研究协议，受访者提出了不同的选择，包括不同的属性水平的属性。他们被要求在这些选项中做出选择。首先，将进行系统评价，以确定最新技术水平。随后，将与公众和患者进行焦点小组讨论，并与医疗专业人员进行专家访谈，以确定将纳入实验的属性，并验证系统评价的结果。使用这种定性的探索性工作，离散选择研究将被设计为定量评估偏好。我们将采用D-效率部分因子设计，调查总样本600名受访者，根据公众，医疗专业人员和患者。将分析多项式条件logit模型和潜在类别模型，以估计最终结果。本研究已获得汉诺威医学院人类伦理委员会的伦理批准（投票编号：7921_BO_K_2018）。调查结果将通过会议介绍、与利益攸关方的讲习班和同行评审的期刊文章传播。
Organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with severe organ failure. Nevertheless, donor organs are a scarce resource resulting in a large mismatch between supply and demand. Therefore, priority-setting leads to the dilemma of how these scarce organs should be allocated and who should be considered eligible to receive a suitable organ. In order to improve the supply–demand mismatch in transplantation medicine, this study explores preferences of different stakeholders (general public, medical professionals and patients) for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation in Germany. The aims are (1) to determine criteria and preferences, which are relevant for the allocation of scarce donor organs and (2) to compare the results between the three target groups to derive strategies for health policy. We outline the study protocol for discrete choice experiments, where respondents are presented with different choices including attributes with varied attribute levels. They were asked to choose between these choice sets. First, systematic reviews will be conducted to identify the state of art. Subsequently, focus group discussions with the public and patients as well as expert interviews with medical professionals will follow to establish the attributes that are going to be included in the experiments and to verify the results of the systematic reviews. Using this qualitative exploratory work, discrete choice studies will be designed to quantitatively assess preferences. We will use a D-efficient fractional factorial design to survey a total sample of 600 respondents according to the public, medical professionals and patients each. Multinomial conditional logit model and latent class model will be analysed to estimate the final results. This study has received Ethics Approval from the Hannover Medical School Human Ethics Committee (Vote number: 7921_BO_K_2018). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, workshops with stakeholders and peer-reviewed journal articles.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3
作者：
Balwani, Manish R.;Gumber, Manoj R.;Trivedi, Hargovind L.
通讯作者：
Trivedi, Hargovind L.
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Johnson, F. Reed;Lancsar, Emily;Bridges, John F. P.
通讯作者：
Bridges, John F. P.
DOI：
10.1111/j.1440-172x.2012.02017.x
发表时间：
2012-04-01
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Harvey, Nichole;Holmes, Colin A.
通讯作者：
Holmes, Colin A.
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Broumand, Mohammadali;Parsapoor, Alireza;Asghari, Fariba
通讯作者：
Asghari, Fariba
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Bobbert, Monika;Ganten, Tom M.
通讯作者：
Ganten, Tom M.