Opt-out defaults do not increase organ donation rates

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2024.08.009
{"title":"Opt-out defaults do not increase organ donation rates","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.08.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To increase organ donation rates, many countries have switched from an opt-in (‘explicit consent’) default for organ donation to an opt-out (‘presumed consent’) default. This study sought to determine the extent to which this change in default has led to an increase in the number of deceased individuals who become organ donors.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Longitudinal retrospective analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective analysis of within-country longitudinal data to assess the effect of changing the organ donation default policy from opt-in to opt-out. Our analysis focused on the longitudinal deceased donor rates in five countries (Argentina, Chile, Sweden, Uruguay, Wales) that had adopted this change. Using a Bayesian aggregated binomial regression model, we estimated the odds of organ donation within each country over time, as well as the effect of the policy switch.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Switching from an opt-in to an opt-out default did not result in an increase in donation rates when averaged across countries. Moreover, the opt-out default did not lead to even a gradual increase in donations: there was no discernible difference in the linear rate of change of donations after the change in default. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduction in the odds of donation across all five countries.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our longitudinal analysis suggests that changing to an opt-out default does not increase organ donation rates. Unless flanked by investments in healthcare, public awareness campaigns, and efforts to address the concerns of the deceased's relatives, a shift to an opt-out default is unlikely to increase organ donations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062400355X/pdfft?md5=6b3c69c069a6a9e4bcea6b2d709638cb&pid=1-s2.0-S003335062400355X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062400355X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To increase organ donation rates, many countries have switched from an opt-in (‘explicit consent’) default for organ donation to an opt-out (‘presumed consent’) default. This study sought to determine the extent to which this change in default has led to an increase in the number of deceased individuals who become organ donors.

Study design

Longitudinal retrospective analysis.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of within-country longitudinal data to assess the effect of changing the organ donation default policy from opt-in to opt-out. Our analysis focused on the longitudinal deceased donor rates in five countries (Argentina, Chile, Sweden, Uruguay, Wales) that had adopted this change. Using a Bayesian aggregated binomial regression model, we estimated the odds of organ donation within each country over time, as well as the effect of the policy switch.

Results

Switching from an opt-in to an opt-out default did not result in an increase in donation rates when averaged across countries. Moreover, the opt-out default did not lead to even a gradual increase in donations: there was no discernible difference in the linear rate of change of donations after the change in default. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduction in the odds of donation across all five countries.

Conclusions

Our longitudinal analysis suggests that changing to an opt-out default does not increase organ donation rates. Unless flanked by investments in healthcare, public awareness campaigns, and efforts to address the concerns of the deceased's relatives, a shift to an opt-out default is unlikely to increase organ donations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
默认选择退出不会提高器官捐献率
为了提高器官捐献率,许多国家已将器官捐献的默认选项从 "选择接受"("明确同意")改为 "选择不接受"("推定同意")。研究设计纵向回顾性分析方法我们对国内纵向数据进行了回顾性分析,以评估将器官捐献默认政策从选择接受改为选择不接受的效果。我们的分析重点是五个国家(阿根廷、智利、瑞典、乌拉圭、威尔士)的纵向已故捐献者比率,这些国家都采用了这一改变。使用贝叶斯聚合二项回归模型,我们估算了每个国家器官捐献的几率随时间变化的情况,以及政策转换的影响。此外,选择不接受默认值甚至没有导致捐赠的逐步增加:默认值改变后,捐赠的线性变化率没有明显差异。最后,在所有五个国家中,COVID-19 大流行与捐赠几率下降有关。除非同时在医疗保健方面进行投资、开展提高公众意识的活动以及努力解决死者亲属的担忧,否则改用选择不捐献的默认方式不太可能增加器官捐献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health
Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.
期刊最新文献
Factors affecting detection and estimation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration of COVID-19 positive cases in wastewater influent: A systematic review A nomogram to predict long COVID risk based on pre- and post-infection factors: Results from a cross-sectional study in South China Socio-spatial inequalities in presence of primary care physicians and patients' ability to register: A simulated-patient survey in the Paris Region Effect of water and sanitation, PM pollution and climate change of COPD and LRIs under different sociodemographic transitions Estimated number and incidence of influenza-associated acute respiratory infection cases in winter 2021/22 in Wanzhou District, China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1