Hyde Melissa K, Masser Barbara M, Edwards Abigail R A, Ferguson Eamonn
1974The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Australian Red Cross Lifeblood, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Prog Transplant. 2021 Dec;31(4):357-367. doi: 10.1177/15269248211046023. Epub 2021 Nov 22.
As many countries change to opt-out systems to address organ shortages, calls for similar reform in Australia persist. Community perspectives on consent systems for donation remain under-researched, therefore Australian perspectives on consent systems and their effectiveness in increasing donation rates were explored. In this descriptive cross-sectional study, participants completed a survey presenting opt-in, soft opt-out, and hard opt-out systems, with corresponding descriptions. Participants chose the system they perceived as most effective and described their reasoning. Participants (N = 509) designated soft opt-out as the most effective system (52.3%; hard opt-out 33.7%; opt-in 13.7%). Those who identified with an ethnic/cultural group or were not registered had greater odds of choosing opt-out. Six themes identified in thematic analysis reflected their reasoning: (1) who decides (individual, shared decision with family); (2) right to choose; (3) acceptability (ethics, fairness); and utility in overcoming barriers for (4) individuals (apathy, awareness, ease of donating, fear/avoidance of death); (5) family (easier family experience, family veto); (6) society (normalizing donation, donation as default, expanding donor pool). Choice and overcoming individual barriers were more frequently endorsed themes for opt-in and opt-out, respectively. Results suggested the following insights regarding system effectiveness: uphold/prioritize individual's recorded donation decision above family wishes; involve family in decision making if no donation preference is recorded; retain a register enabling opt-in and opt-out for unequivocal decisions and promoting individual control; and maximize ease of registering. Future research should establish whether systems considered effective are also acceptable to the community to address organ shortages.
随着许多国家转向选择退出系统以解决器官短缺问题,澳大利亚要求进行类似改革的呼声持续不断。社区对捐赠同意系统的看法仍未得到充分研究,因此探讨了澳大利亚人对同意系统及其在提高捐赠率方面有效性的看法。在这项描述性横断面研究中,参与者完成了一项调查,该调查展示了选择加入、软选择退出和硬选择退出系统,并配有相应描述。参与者选择他们认为最有效的系统并说明理由。参与者(N = 509)将软选择退出指定为最有效的系统(52.3%;硬选择退出33.7%;选择加入13.7%)。认同某个族裔/文化群体或未登记的人选择退出的可能性更大。主题分析中确定的六个主题反映了他们的理由:(1)谁来决定(个人、与家人共同决定);(2)选择权;(3)可接受性(伦理、公平);以及在克服以下方面障碍的效用:(4)个人(冷漠、意识、捐赠便利性、对死亡的恐惧/回避);(5)家人(家人经历更轻松、家人否决权);(6)社会(使捐赠常态化、默认捐赠、扩大捐赠者群体)。选择和克服个人障碍分别是选择加入和选择退出更常被认可的主题。结果就系统有效性提出了以下见解:将个人记录的捐赠决定置于家庭意愿之上并予以优先考虑;如果没有记录捐赠偏好,则让家人参与决策;保留一份登记册,以便做出明确决定并促进个人控制的选择加入和选择退出;并最大限度地提高登记的便利性。未来的研究应确定被认为有效的系统是否也为社区所接受,以解决器官短缺问题。