A note on a discussion group study of public preferences regarding priorities in the allocation of donor kidneys

Title: A note on a discussion group study of public preferences regarding priorities in the allocation of donor kidneysAuthors: Dolan, Paul and Shaw, RebeccaPublisherHealth policy, 68 (1). pp. 31-36ISSN: 0168-8510View PublicationAbstract: Objective: To explore whether and how people wish to give differential priority based on certain characteristics of the potential recipient of a donor kidney. Design: A random sample of people resident in York was invited to attend two focus group meetings each, a fortnight apart. Setting: The City of York. Participants: Twenty-three randomly chosen people meeting in four groups of five or six. Main outcome measures: Those factors that people think should be taken into account when allocating donor kidneys, in addition to the expected benefits from transplantation. Results: People are willing and able to distinguish between potential recipients of a kidney transplantation according to a range of characteristics beyond the expected benefits from treatment. There is a clear consensus across the four groups that one of the most important considerations is what will happen to the patient without treatment, and so priority is given to those with a poor prognosis. There is also a strong view that priority should be given to younger patients and to those with dependants. The time spent waiting for a transplant is also important, but less so. Conclusions: A sample of the general public, after discussion and debate, wish to take account of a number of patient characteristics when allocating donor kidneys. There is some degree of consensus about what these factors should be and this suggests that it might be possible to develop a set of guidelines for the allocation of donor kidneys.

Previous
Previous

Explaining attitudes towards ambiguity: an experimental test of the comparative ignorance hypothesis

Next
Next

To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set