Show simple item record

Patient decision making about organ quality in liver transplantation

dc.contributor.authorVolk, Michael L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTocco, Rachel S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPelletier, Shawn J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorZikmund-Fisher, Brian J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLok, Anna Suk-Fongen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-12-05T18:34:12Z
dc.date.available2013-02-01T20:26:18Zen_US
dc.date.issued2011-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationVolk, Michael L.; Tocco, Rachel S.; Pelletier, Shawn J.; Zikmund‐fisher, Brian J. ; Lok, Anna S. F. (2011). "Patient decision making about organ quality in liver transplantation ." Liver Transplantation 17(12): 1387-1393. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/88081>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1527-6465en_US
dc.identifier.issn1527-6473en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/88081
dc.description.abstractIt is challenging to discuss the use of high‐risk organs with patients, in part because of the lack of information about how patients view this topic. This study was designed to determine how patients think about organ quality and to test formats for risk communication. Semistructured interviews of 10 patients on the waiting list revealed limited understanding about the spectrum of organ quality and a reluctance to consider anything but the best organs. A computerized quantitative survey was then conducted with an interactive graph to elicit the risk of graft failure that patients would accept. Fifty‐eight percent of the 95 wait‐listed patients who completed the survey would accept only organs with a risk of graft failure of 25% or less at 3 years, whereas 18% would accept only organs with the lowest risk possible (19% at 3 years). Risk tolerance was increased when the organ quality was presented relative to average organs rather than the best organs and when feedback was provided about the implications for organ availability. More than three‐quarters of the patients reported that they wanted an equal or dominant role in organ acceptance decisions. Men tended to prefer lower risk organs (mean acceptable risk = 29%) in comparison with women (mean acceptable risk = 35%, P = 0.04), but risk tolerance was not associated with other demographic or clinical characteristics (eg, the severity of liver disease). In summary, patients want to be involved in decisions about organ quality. Patients' risk tolerance varies widely, and their acceptance of high‐risk organs can be facilitated if we present the risks of graft failure with respect to average organs and provide feedback about the implications for organ availability. Liver Transpl, 2011. © 2011 AASLD.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.titlePatient decision making about organ quality in liver transplantationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelSurgery and Anesthesiologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of Transplant Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls Street, 7C27, Ann Arbor, MI 48109en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21932377en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/88081/1/22437_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/lt.22437en_US
dc.identifier.sourceLiver Transplantationen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg‐Gresham JL, Dykstra DM, Punch JD, DebRoy MA, et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 783 ‐ 790.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKlein AS, Messersmith EE, Ratner LE, Kochik R, Baliga PK, Ojo AO. Organ donation and utilization in the United States, 1999‐2008. Am J Transplant 2010; 10 ( pt 2 ): 973 ‐ 986.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHalpern SD, Shaked A, Hasz RD, Caplan AL. Informing candidates for solid‐organ transplantation about donor risk factors. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2832 ‐ 2837.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCreswell JW. Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2006.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePatton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBryce CL, Angus DC, Switala J, Roberts MS, Tsevat J. Health status versus utilities of patients with end‐stage liver disease. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 773 ‐ 782.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWallston KA, Wallston BS, DeVellis R. Development of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scales. Health Educ Monogr 1978; 6: 160 ‐ 170.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHall MA. Researching medical trust in the United States. J Health Organ Manag 2006; 20: 456 ‐ 467.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWatson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54: 1063 ‐ 1070.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZikmund‐Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 663 ‐ 671.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHawley ST, Zikmund‐Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health‐related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73: 448 ‐ 455.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZikmund‐Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Derry HA, McClure JB, Stark A, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73: 209 ‐ 214.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStack AG, Martin DR. Association of patient autonomy with increased transplantation and survival among new dialysis patients in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 2005; 45: 730 ‐ 742.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaines LS, Joseph JT, Jindal RM. Compliance and late acute rejection after kidney transplantation: a psycho‐medical perspective. Clin Transplant 2002; 16: 69 ‐ 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoss LF, Zenios S, Thistlethwaite JR Jr. Shared decision making in deceased‐donor transplantation. Lancet 2006; 368: 333 ‐ 337.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund‐Fisher BJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31 ( suppl 1 ): S47 ‐ S56.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZikmund‐Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Roberts TR, Derry HA, Ubel PA. Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence. J Health Commun 2008; 13: 107 ‐ 124.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFagerlin A, Zikmund‐Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. “If I'm better than average, then I'm ok?”: comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 69: 140 ‐ 144.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRodrigue JR, Hanto DW, Curry MP. Patients' willingness to accept expanded criteria donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 1705 ‐ 1711.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuan KI, Englesbe MJ, Volk ML. Centers for Disease Control ‘high‐risk’ donors and kidney utilization. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 416 ‐ 420.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRos RL, Kucirka LM, Govindan P, Sarathy H, Montgomery RA, Segev DL. Patient attitudes toward CDC high infectious risk donor kidney transplantation: inferences from focus groups. Clin Transplant; doi:10.1111/j.1399–0012.2011.01469.x.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.