Deceased donor organ intervention research holds promise for increasing the quantity and quality of organs for transplantation by minimizing organ injury and optimizing function. Such research will not progress until ethical, regulatory, and legal issues are resolved regarding whether and how to obtain informed consent from transplant candidates offered intervention organs given time constraints intrinsic to distribution. This multi‐center, mixed‐methods study involved semi‐structured interviews using open‐ and closed‐ended questions to assess waitlisted candidates’ preferences for informed consent processes if offered an organ after undergoing intervention. Data were analyzed thematically. Sixty‐one candidates participated (47% participation rate). Most were male (57%), white (61%), with a mean age of 56 years. Most candidates (79%) desired being informed that the organ offered was an intervention organ before accepting it, and were likely to accept an intervention organ if organ quality was good (defined as donor age 30) (81%), but fewer candidates would accept an intervention organ if quality was moderate (ie, donor age 50) (26%). Most perceived informed consent important for decision‐making, while others considered it unnecessary given medical necessity to accept an organ and trust in their physician. Our findings suggest that most candidates desire an informed consent process before accepting an intervention organ and posttransplant data collection.

Deceased organ donor intervention research aims to increase organ quality and quantity for transplantation. We assessed the proportion of kidney transplant candidates who would accept “intervention organs,” participate in organ intervention research, and factors influencing acceptance. Kidney transplant candidates were presented 12 hypothetical scenarios, which varied three attributes, donor age, predicted waiting time to receive another organ offer, and research risk to the organ. Candidates were also randomly assigned to one of two conditions varying recipient risk. For each scenario, candidates agreed to accept the intervention organ or remain waitlisted. We fit a multivariable logit model to determine the association between scenario attributes and the acceptance decision. Of 249 participants, most (96%) accepted intervention organs under some or all conditions. Factors independently associated with candidates’ greater likelihood of accepting an intervention organ included: low risk to the kidney from the intervention (OR 20.53 [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 13.91‐30.29]); younger donor age (OR 3.72 [95% CI, 2.83‐4.89]), longer time until the next organ offer (OR 3.48 [95% CI, 2.65‐4.57]), and greater trust in their transplant physician (OR 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00‐1.06]). Candidates with a lower likelihood of acceptance had been waitlisted longer (OR 0.97 per month [95% CI, 0.96‐0.99]) and were Black (OR 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08‐0.55]). Most candidates would accept an intervention organ, which should encourage transplant leaders to conduct deceased donor organ intervention trials.

Introduction Regulatory changes made during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) that relaxed criteria for take-home dosing (THD) of methadone offer an opportunity to improve quality of care with a lifesaving treatment. There is a pressing need for research to study the long-term effects of the new PHE THD rules and to test data-driven interventions to promote more effective adoption by opioid treatment programs (OTPs). We propose a two-phase project to develop and test a multidimensional intervention for OTPs that leverages information from large State administrative data. Methods and analysis We propose a two-phased project to develop then test a multidimensional OTP intervention to address clinical decision making, regulatory confusion, legal liability concerns, capacity for clinical practice change, and financial barriers to THD. The intervention will include OTP THD specific dashboards drawn from multiple State databases. The approach will be informed by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF). In phase 1, we will employ an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to combine analysis of large state administrative databases—Medicaid, treatment registry, THD reporting—with qualitative interviews to develop and refine the intervention. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge trial over three years with 36 OTPs randomized to 6 cohorts of a six-month clinic-level intervention. The trial will test intervention effects on OTP-level implementation outcomes and patient outcomes (1) THD use; 2) retention in care; and 3) adverse healthcare events). We will specifically examine intervention effects for Black and Latinx clients. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design will be used: quantitative and qualitative data collection will occur concurrently and results will be integrated after analysis of each. We will employ generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) in the analysis of stepped-wedge trials. The primary outcome will be weekly or greater THD. The semi-structured interviews will be transcribed and analyzed with Dedoose to identify key facilitators, barriers, and experiences according to HEIF constructs using directed content analysis. Discussion This multi-phase, embedded mixed methods project addresses a critical need to support long-term practice changes in methadone treatment for opioid use disorder following systemic changes emerging from the PHE—particularly for Black and Latinx individuals with opioid use disorder. By combining findings from analyses of large administrative data with lessons gleaned from qualitative interviews of OTPs that were flexible with THD and those that were not, we will build and test the intervention to coach clinics to increase flexibility with THD. The findings will inform policy at the local and national level.