Transplant Recipient Preferences Regarding Organ Donor Research: Their Role in Consent and use of Their Data

Abstract

Research on deceased organ donors has been hindered by concerns related to seeking research consent from transplant recipients. We undertook this qualitative study to elucidate solid organ transplant recipients views on organ donor research, their role in the consent for such research, and their preferences related to providing their data. We conducted interviews with 18 participants and three themes emerged from the data. The first centered around participant research literacy. The second described practical preferences of participating in research, and the third related to the connection between donor and recipient. We concluded that previously held views about the requirement for transplant recipients to have a consenting role in donor research is not always suitable.

Keywords

human informed consent organ donor organ transplantation research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abt

P. L.

Feng

(2016). Organ donor research: It is time for much needed clarity. American Journal of Transplantation, 16(9), 2508–2509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13939

Canadian Institute for Healthcare Innovation (2014). Deceased organ donor potential in Canada report. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/OrganDonorReport_ENweb.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2022

Cooper

Gardiner

H. D.

(2020). Examining consent for interventional research in potential deceased organ donors: A narrative review. Anaesthesia, 75(9), 1229–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15039

D’Aragon

Burns

K. E. A.

Yaworski

, et al. (2020). Research consent models used in prospective studies of neurologically deceased organ donors: a systematic review. Journal of Empirical Research, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264620904627

D’Aragon

Dhanani

Lamontagne

, et al. (2017). Canada-DONATE study protocol: A perspective national observational study of the medical management of deceased organ donors. BMJ Open, 7, e018858. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018858

Elo

Kyngas

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j1365-2648.200704569.z

Gallin Heffernan

Glazier

A. K.

(2017). Are transplant recipients human subjects when research is conducted on organ donors? Hastings Center Report, 47(5), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.757

Gordon

E. J.

Knopf

Philips

, et al. (2019). Transplant candidates’ perceptions of informed consent for accepting deceased donor organs subjected to intervention research and for participating in posttransplant research. American Journal of Transplantation, 00, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.15607

Guedj

Ballester

Kamar

, et al. (2013). Patients’ motives for consenting or refusing to participate in a clinical trial in organ transplantation. Clinical Transplantation, 27, 724–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.12214

10.

Hseih

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2015). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res., 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

11.

Malterud

Siersma

V. D.

Guassora

A. D.

(2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Innovative Methods, 26(3), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

12.

Martin

D. E.

Cronin

A. J.

Dalle Ave

, et al. (2016). Addressing ethical confusion in deceased donation and transplantation research: the need for dedicated guidance. Transplant International, 34, 2459–2459. https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.14108

13.

Neergaard

M. A.

Olesen

Andersen

R. S.

, et al. (2009). Qualitative description – the poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(52), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-52

14.

Nurs

K. E. A.

Magyarody

N. M.

Duffett

, et al. (2010). Attitudes of the general public toward alternative consent models. AJCC, 20(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2010645

15.

Panel on research ethics (2020). TCPS 2 (2018) – chapter 3: the consent process. Government of Canada. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter3-chapitre3.html. Accessed March 14, 2022

16.

Rasiah

Jaafar

Yusof

Ponnudurai

Pooi Yin Chung

Amirthalingam

S. D.

(2020). A study of the nature and level of trust between patients and healthcare providers, its dimensions and determinants: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open, 10, e028061. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028061

17.

Rey

M. M.

Ware

L. B.

Matthay

M. A.

, et al. (2011). Informed consent in research to improve the number and quality of deceased donor organs. CritCare Med, 39(2), 280–283. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181feeb04

18.

Rodrigue

J. R.

Feng

Johansson

A. C.

Glazier

A. K.

Abt

P. L.

(2016). Deceased donor intervention research: A survey of transplant surgeons, organ procurement professionals, and institutional review board members. American Journal of Transplantation, 16(1), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13482

19.

Sarti

A. J.

Sutherland

Healey

, et al. (2018). A multicenter qualitative investigation of the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision makers who underwent organ donation decisions. Progress in Transplantation, 29(4), 343–348. https://doi.org/DOI10.1177/1526924818800046

20.

The Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program (2022). Patient, family, and donor partnership platform. https://cdtrp.ca/en/platforms/patient-family-and-donor-partnership-platform/ Accessed September 21, 2022

21.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

(2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ); a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

22.

Warrens

A. N.

Lovell

(2012). Addressing problems in transplantation research in the United Kingdom. Transplantation, 93(9), 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e31824cd589

23.

Zoom Video Communications Inc (2022). zoom meetings chat. https://zoom.us/meetings Accessed September 21, 2022

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB