Family physicians' role in recruitment of organ donors.

S A Bidigare, A R Ellis
{"title":"Family physicians' role in recruitment of organ donors.","authors":"S A Bidigare,&nbsp;A R Ellis","doi":"10.1001/archfami.9.7.601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if family physicians can increase the commitment of patients to organ donation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective, systematically randomized, cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Family practice residency medical center associated with an urban, community-based teaching institution.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>A total of 300 patients aged 18 years or older, able to give consent, and being seen for non-life-threatening visits; 247 patients returned valid second questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Instruments included 2 self-administered questionnaires. All patients received questionnaire 1 to be completed in the examination room. They also received an informational brochure, a Michigan Secretary of State driver's license sticker (donor sticker) and questionnaire 2. Group 1 received the written materials only. Group 2 received written materials plus a brief verbal discussion by the investigators following a standard protocol. Questionnaire 2 was to be completed and returned after the interventions.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Self-reported completion of donor sticker was used to evaluate commitment to organ donation. Knowledge scores were summed for preintervention and postintervention means.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Thirty-three percent of patients had already committed to organ donation prior to the study. Of those not previously committed, 40% decided to do so after the interventions. There was no statistical difference in the recruitment of donors between the 2 intervention groups. Of new donors identified, 65% stated their decision was due to written materials provided, while 34% attributed this to discussion with a physician. Thirty-five percent of the family members made arrangements to donate their own organs after the discussion with the patient. There was a significant difference between mean pretest and posttest knowledge scores (10 questions; 7.9 vs 9.2; P<.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Family physicians can increase the commitment to organ donation through a relatively simple intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":8295,"journal":{"name":"Archives of family medicine","volume":"9 7","pages":"601-4; discussion 605"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"41","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of family medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.9.7.601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41

Abstract

Objective: To determine if family physicians can increase the commitment of patients to organ donation.

Design: Prospective, systematically randomized, cross-sectional study.

Setting: Family practice residency medical center associated with an urban, community-based teaching institution.

Patients: A total of 300 patients aged 18 years or older, able to give consent, and being seen for non-life-threatening visits; 247 patients returned valid second questionnaires.

Interventions: Instruments included 2 self-administered questionnaires. All patients received questionnaire 1 to be completed in the examination room. They also received an informational brochure, a Michigan Secretary of State driver's license sticker (donor sticker) and questionnaire 2. Group 1 received the written materials only. Group 2 received written materials plus a brief verbal discussion by the investigators following a standard protocol. Questionnaire 2 was to be completed and returned after the interventions.

Main outcome measures: Self-reported completion of donor sticker was used to evaluate commitment to organ donation. Knowledge scores were summed for preintervention and postintervention means.

Result: Thirty-three percent of patients had already committed to organ donation prior to the study. Of those not previously committed, 40% decided to do so after the interventions. There was no statistical difference in the recruitment of donors between the 2 intervention groups. Of new donors identified, 65% stated their decision was due to written materials provided, while 34% attributed this to discussion with a physician. Thirty-five percent of the family members made arrangements to donate their own organs after the discussion with the patient. There was a significant difference between mean pretest and posttest knowledge scores (10 questions; 7.9 vs 9.2; P<.01).

Conclusion: Family physicians can increase the commitment to organ donation through a relatively simple intervention.

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
家庭医生在招募器官捐献者中的作用。
目的:确定家庭医生是否能提高患者对器官捐献的承诺。设计:前瞻性、系统随机、横断面研究。环境:家庭执业住院医师医疗中心与城市,社区为基础的教学机构。患者:总共300名18岁或以上的患者,能够表示同意,并且正在进行无生命危险的访问;247例患者返回有效的第二次问卷。干预措施:工具包括2份自填问卷。所有患者均收到调查表1,在检查室完成。他们还收到了一本信息小册子,一张密歇根州州务卿驾驶执照贴纸(捐赠者贴纸)和一份问卷。第一组只收到书面材料。第二组收到书面材料,外加调查人员按照标准方案进行简短的口头讨论。问卷2在干预后完成并返回。主要观察指标:使用自我报告的供体贴纸完成情况来评估器官捐赠的承诺。对干预前和干预后的知识得分进行汇总。结果:33%的患者在研究前已经承诺捐献器官。在那些以前没有承诺的人中,40%的人在干预后决定这样做。两个干预组在供体招募方面无统计学差异。在确定的新捐赠者中,65%的人表示他们的决定是由于提供的书面材料,而34%的人将其归因于与医生的讨论。35%的家属在与患者讨论后决定捐献自己的器官。测试前和测试后的平均知识得分有显著差异(10题;7.9 vs 9.2;结论:家庭医生可以通过一个相对简单的干预来增加器官捐献的意愿。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Human papillomavirus infection. Walking the line. A Short Collection of Fables for Learning the Fundamental Principles of Family Medicine: Chapter 1. Comprehensiveness, Continuity, Contextualization and Family Clues to early Alzheimer dementia in the outpatient setting. Competing demands from physical problems: effect on initiating and completing depression care over 6 months.
×
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