Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Solid organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for organ failure, but donor organs are a scarce resource because of a large mismatch between supply and demand. This scarcity leads to an ethical dilemma, forcing priority setting in organ allocation to individual patients. Little is known about public preferences regarding priority setting in organ allocation. A systematic review was performed to review the existing evidence and provide an overview of the criteria and criterion levels in regard to ethical aspects of distributive justice.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO and PsycINFO databases were searched for literature published between January 2000 and December 2018. Only original studies were selected. The criteria were identified, extracted and grouped into a self-developed matrix according to the principles of distributive justice to ascertain public preferences.

Results

Overall, 9645 references were identified, and 15 studies were included. In total, 27 criteria clustered in seven theory-guided groups could be identified: “equality”, “effectiveness/benefit”, “medical urgency”, “own fault”, “value for society”, “medical background” and “sociodemographic status”. It was shown that not only a single principle but rather a combination of principles are relevant for the allocation. Therefore, a public propensity towards a rational utilitarian ethical model of allocation could be recognised.

Conclusions

The general public not only wanted to allocate organs mainly to those with a good probability of having a successful transplantation but also wanted to consider those who need an organ most urgently to prevent fatal consequences, resulting in unclear trade-offs between effectiveness/benefit and medical urgency. Public preferences for organ allocation are therefore complex, and data regarding clear trade-offs are still lacking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pinson CW, Feurer ID, Payne JL, Wise PE, Shockley S, Speroff T. Health-related quality of life after different types of solid organ transplantation. Ann Surg. 2000;232:597–607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, Harper C, MacDonald P, Shackel N, et al. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transpl Int. 2017;30:327–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gutmann T, Land W. The ethics of organ allocation: the state of debate. Transpl Rev. 1997;11:191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eurotransplant (ET). Annual Report 2016. Eurotransplant International Foundation. Leiden: Eurotransplant Foundation; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tong A, Jan S, Wong G, Craig JC, Irving MJ, Chadban S, et al. Rationing scarce organs for transplantation: healthcare provider perspectives on wait-listing and organ allocation. Clin Transpl. 2013;27:60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Leichtman AB, McCullough KP, Wolfe RA. Improving the allocation system for deceased-donor kidneys. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1287–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gottlieb J, Gwinner W, Strassburg CP. Allocation systems in transplantation medicine: advantages and disadvantages. Internist (Berl). 2016;57:15–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gesetz über die Spende, Entnahme und Übertragung von Organen und Geweben (Transplantationsgesetz—TPG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 4. September 2007 (BGBl. I S. 2206), das zuletzt durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 18. Juli 2017 (BGBl. I S. 2757) geändert worden ist. [Act on organ and tissue donation, removal and transplantation (German Transplant Act, TPG)].

  9. Bobbert M, Ganten TM. Liver allocation: urgency of need or prospect of success? Ethical considerations. Clin Transpl. 2013;27(Suppl. 25):34–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schrem H, Focken M, Gunson B, Reichert B, Mirza D, Kreipe HH, et al. The new liver allocation score for transplantation is validated and improved transplant survival benefit in Germany but not in the United Kingdom. Liver Transpl. 2016;22:743–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lamont J, Favor C. Distributive justice. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Standford encyclopedia of philosophy. 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/. Accessed 25 Jan 2019.

  12. Cookson R. Justice and the NICE approach. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:99–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Olsen JA. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care. J Health Econ. 1997;16:625–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet. 2009;373:423–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shaw D, Gardiner D. Moral distance and distributive justice: how the increase in organ donation is helping us make better ethical decisions. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:10–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tong A, Howard K, Jan S, Cass A, Rose J, Chadban S, Allen RD, Craig JC. Community preferences for the allocation of solid organs for transplantation: a systematic review. Transplantation. 2010;89:796–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Broumand M, Parsapoor A, Asghari F. Public opinion of organ donation: a survey in Iran. Clin Transpl. 2012;26:E500–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chandler JA, Burkell JA, Shemie SD. Priority in organ allocation to previously registered donors: public perceptions of the fairness and effectiveness of priority systems. Prog Transpl. 2012;22:413–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Howard K, Jan S, Rose JM, Wong G, Craig JC, Irving MJ, et al. Preferences for policy options for deceased organ donation for transplantation: a discrete choice experiment. Transplantation. 2016;100:1136–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Irving MJ, Jan S, Tong A, Wong G, Craig JC, Chadban S, et al. What factors influence people’s decisions to register for organ donation? The results of a nominal group study. Transpl Int. 2014;27:617–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Li AT, Wong G, Irving MJ, Jan S, Tong A, Ralph AF, et al. Community-based interventions and individuals’ willingness to be a deceased organ donor: systematic review and meta-analysis. Transplantation. 2015;99:2634–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moorlock G, Ives J, Bramhall S, Draper H. Should we reject donated organs on moral grounds or permit allocation using non-medical criteria? A qualitative study. Bioethics. 2016;30:282–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morgan SE, Harrison TR, Afifi WA, Long SD, Stephenson MT. In their own words: the reasons why people will (not) sign an organ donor card. Health Commun. 2008;23:23–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oedingen C, Bartling T, Krauth C. Public, medical professionals’ and patients’ preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e026040.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. The Equator (enhancing the quality and transparency of health research) Network. http://www.equator-network.org/. Accessed 25 Jan 2019.

  26. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:121–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dolan P, Shaw R. A note on a discussion group study of public preferences regarding priorities in the allocation of donor kidneys. Health Policy. 2004;68:31–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Irving MJ, Tong A, Jan S, Wong G, Cass A, Allen RD, et al. Community preferences for the allocation of deceased donor organs for transplantation: a focus group study. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2013;28:2187–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilmot S, Ratcliffe J. Principles of distributive justice used by members of the general public in the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2002;5:199–209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Asghari F, Broumand M, Heidari A. Public preferences for donor kidney allocation: a study in Iran. Clin Transplant. 2013;27:718–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Balwani MR, Gumber MR, Shah PR, Kute VB, Patel HV, Engineer DP, et al. Attitude and awareness towards organ donation in western India. Ren Fail. 2015;37:582–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Browning CJ, Thomas SA. Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:853–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chan H, Cheung G, Yip A. Selection criteria for recipients of scarce donor livers: a public opinion survey in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2006;12:40–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dao Van M, Lauerer M, Schätzlein V. Nagel E. The trade-off between chance of success and urgency in organ allocation: a discrete choice experiment to elicit public preferences. Gesundheitswesen. 2016;78:454–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Howard K, Jan S, Rose JM, Wong G, Irving MJ, Tong A, et al. Community preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation. A discrete choice study. Transplantation. 2015;99:560–7.

  39. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9:137–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, Young T, Longworth L. Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sears SF Jr, Marhefka SL, Rodrigue JR, Campbell C. The role of patients’ ability to pay, gender, and smoking history on public attitudes toward cardiac transplant allocation: an experimental investigation. Health Psychol. 2000;19:192–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Spital A. Should people who commit themselves to organ donation be granted preferred status to receive organ transplants? Clin Transpl. 2005;19:269–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Stahl JE, Tramontano AC, Swan JS, Cohen BJ. Balancing urgency, age and quality of life in organ allocation decisions: what would you do? A survey. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:109–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stroh G, Rosell T, Dong F, Forster J. Early liver transplantation for patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis: public views and the effects on organ donation. Am J Transpl. 2015;15:1598–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J, Mohr T, McMorrow S, Asch DA. Allocation of transplantable organs: do people want to punish patients for causing their illness? Liver Transpl. 2001;7:600–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Merion RM, Ashby VB, Wolfe RA, Distant DA, Hulbert-Shearon TE, Metzger RA, et al. Deceased-donor characteristics and the survival benefit of kidney transplantation. JAMA. 2005;294:2726–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Laging M, Kal-van Gestel JA, van de Wetering J, IJzermans JN, Betjes MG, Weimar W, et al. A high comorbidity score should not be a contraindication for kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2016;100:400–6.

  48. Albertsen A. Drinking in the last chance saloon: luck egalitarianism, alcohol consumption, and the organ transplant waiting list. Med Health Care Philos. 2016;19:325–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lippert-Rasmussen K. Arneson on equality of opportunity for welfare. J Polit Philos. 1999;7:478–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J Health Econ. 1991;10:21–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy. 1993;24:227–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford: University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

    Carina Oedingen, Tim Bartling & Christian Krauth

  2. Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany

    Carina Oedingen, Tim Bartling & Christian Krauth

  3. Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany

    Axel C. Mühlbacher

  4. Duke Department of Population Health Sciences and Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Axel C. Mühlbacher

  5. Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria

    Harald Schrem

  6. Transplant Center Graz, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria

    Harald Schrem

Authors
  1. Carina Oedingen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Bartling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Axel C. Mühlbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harald Schrem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Krauth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CO contributed to the development of the study design, carried out the literature search and analysis, and drafted and improved the manuscript. TB carried out and reviewed the literature search and analysis, and reviewed and commented on the preliminary drafts and final version of the manuscript. ACM and HS reviewed and commented on the preliminary and final manuscript drafts. CK contributed to the development of the study design, reviewed and commented on the literature search and analysis, and reviewed and commented on the preliminary manuscript drafts and the final version. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of this work, ensuring the integrity and accuracy of this systematic review. All authors revised the manuscript and approved it for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carina Oedingen.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant no.: 01EH1603B).

Conflict of interest

Carina Oedingen and Tim Bartling were funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The funding source had no role in the study and no influence on the data collection and analyses, interpretation of the results or writing of the publication. Axel C. Mühlbacher, Harald Schrem and Christian Krauth have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its Electronic Supplementary Material.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oedingen, C., Bartling, T., Mühlbacher, A.C. et al. Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice. Patient 12, 475–489 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00363-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00363-0

Search

Navigation