患者对在肾移植评估中使用虚弱程度、认知功能和年龄的看法。

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-08 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2022.2090460
Prakriti Shrestha, Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Maria Fazal, Nadia M Chu, Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang, Elisa J Gordon, Mara McAdams-DeMarco, Casey Jo Humbyrd
{"title":"患者对在肾移植评估中使用虚弱程度、认知功能和年龄的看法。","authors":"Prakriti Shrestha, Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Maria Fazal, Nadia M Chu, Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang, Elisa J Gordon, Mara McAdams-DeMarco, Casey Jo Humbyrd","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2022.2090460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The allocation of scarce deceased donor kidneys is a complex process. Transplant providers are increasingly relying on constructs such as frailty and cognitive function to guide kidney transplant (KT) candidate selection. Patient views of the ethical issues surrounding the use of such constructs are unclear. We sought to assess KT candidates' attitudes and beliefs about the use of frailty and cognitive function to guide waitlist selection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>KT candidates were randomly recruited from an ongoing single-center cohort study of frailty and cognitive function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was performed. Inductively derived themes were mapped onto bioethics principles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty interviews were conducted (65% contact rate, 100% participation rate) (60% male; 70% White). With respect to the use of frailty and cognitive function in waitlisting decisions, four themes emerged in which participants: (1) valued maximizing a scarce resource (utility); (2) prioritized equal access to all patients (equity); (3) appreciated a proportional approach to the use of equity and utility (precautionary utility); and (4) sought to weigh utility- and equity-based concerns regarding social support. While some participants believed frailty and cognitive function were useful constructs to maximize utility, others believed their use would jeopardize equity. Patients were uncomfortable with using single factors such as frailty or cognitive impairment to deny someone access to transplantation; participants instead encouraged using the constructs to identify opportunities for intervention to improve frailty and cognitive function prior to KT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>KT candidates' values mirrored the current allocation strategy, seeking to balance equity and utility in a just manner, albeit with conflicting viewpoints on the appropriate use of frailty and cognitive impairment in waitlisting decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"13 4","pages":"263-274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Perspectives on the Use of Frailty, Cognitive Function, and Age in Kidney Transplant Evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Prakriti Shrestha, Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Maria Fazal, Nadia M Chu, Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang, Elisa J Gordon, Mara McAdams-DeMarco, Casey Jo Humbyrd\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23294515.2022.2090460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The allocation of scarce deceased donor kidneys is a complex process. Transplant providers are increasingly relying on constructs such as frailty and cognitive function to guide kidney transplant (KT) candidate selection. Patient views of the ethical issues surrounding the use of such constructs are unclear. We sought to assess KT candidates' attitudes and beliefs about the use of frailty and cognitive function to guide waitlist selection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>KT candidates were randomly recruited from an ongoing single-center cohort study of frailty and cognitive function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was performed. Inductively derived themes were mapped onto bioethics principles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty interviews were conducted (65% contact rate, 100% participation rate) (60% male; 70% White). With respect to the use of frailty and cognitive function in waitlisting decisions, four themes emerged in which participants: (1) valued maximizing a scarce resource (utility); (2) prioritized equal access to all patients (equity); (3) appreciated a proportional approach to the use of equity and utility (precautionary utility); and (4) sought to weigh utility- and equity-based concerns regarding social support. While some participants believed frailty and cognitive function were useful constructs to maximize utility, others believed their use would jeopardize equity. Patients were uncomfortable with using single factors such as frailty or cognitive impairment to deny someone access to transplantation; participants instead encouraged using the constructs to identify opportunities for intervention to improve frailty and cognitive function prior to KT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>KT candidates' values mirrored the current allocation strategy, seeking to balance equity and utility in a just manner, albeit with conflicting viewpoints on the appropriate use of frailty and cognitive impairment in waitlisting decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"13 4\",\"pages\":\"263-274\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288332/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2090460\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2090460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:稀缺的已故捐献者肾脏的分配是一个复杂的过程。器官移植提供者越来越依赖于虚弱程度和认知功能等指标来指导肾移植(KT)候选者的选择。患者对使用这些指标所涉及的伦理问题的看法尚不明确。我们试图评估 KT 候选人对使用虚弱程度和认知功能指导候选名单选择的态度和信念:KT 候选人是从一项正在进行的虚弱和认知功能单中心队列研究中随机招募的。进行了半结构式访谈,并进行了主题分析。将归纳得出的主题映射到生命伦理学原则中:共进行了 20 次访谈(接触率 65%,参与率 100%)(60% 为男性;70% 为白人)。关于在候选名单决策中使用虚弱程度和认知功能的问题,参与者提出了四个主题:(1) 重视稀缺资源的最大化(效用);(2) 优先考虑所有患者的平等就医(公平);(3) 赞赏公平和效用的比例使用方法(预防性效用);(4) 试图权衡效用和公平对社会支持的影响。一些参与者认为,虚弱程度和认知功能是实现效用最大化的有用因素,而另一些参与者则认为使用这些因素会损害公平性。患者对使用虚弱或认知功能障碍等单一因素来拒绝他人接受移植感到不安;相反,参与者鼓励使用这些概念来确定干预机会,以便在进行 KT 之前改善虚弱和认知功能:KT 候选者的价值观反映了当前的分配策略,即寻求以公正的方式平衡公平与效用,尽管他们对在候选名单决策中适当使用虚弱和认知功能障碍的观点存在冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient Perspectives on the Use of Frailty, Cognitive Function, and Age in Kidney Transplant Evaluation.

Background: The allocation of scarce deceased donor kidneys is a complex process. Transplant providers are increasingly relying on constructs such as frailty and cognitive function to guide kidney transplant (KT) candidate selection. Patient views of the ethical issues surrounding the use of such constructs are unclear. We sought to assess KT candidates' attitudes and beliefs about the use of frailty and cognitive function to guide waitlist selection.

Methods: KT candidates were randomly recruited from an ongoing single-center cohort study of frailty and cognitive function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was performed. Inductively derived themes were mapped onto bioethics principles.

Results: Twenty interviews were conducted (65% contact rate, 100% participation rate) (60% male; 70% White). With respect to the use of frailty and cognitive function in waitlisting decisions, four themes emerged in which participants: (1) valued maximizing a scarce resource (utility); (2) prioritized equal access to all patients (equity); (3) appreciated a proportional approach to the use of equity and utility (precautionary utility); and (4) sought to weigh utility- and equity-based concerns regarding social support. While some participants believed frailty and cognitive function were useful constructs to maximize utility, others believed their use would jeopardize equity. Patients were uncomfortable with using single factors such as frailty or cognitive impairment to deny someone access to transplantation; participants instead encouraged using the constructs to identify opportunities for intervention to improve frailty and cognitive function prior to KT.

Conclusions: KT candidates' values mirrored the current allocation strategy, seeking to balance equity and utility in a just manner, albeit with conflicting viewpoints on the appropriate use of frailty and cognitive impairment in waitlisting decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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