‘What if I'm not dead?’ – Myth‐busting and organ donation

Miller, Jordan; Currie, Sinéad; O’Carroll, Ronan E.

doi:10.1111/bjhp.12344

Cited by 28 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In recognition of this, NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) currently provides a ‘myth‐busting’ feature on their webpage as a method of dispelling myths and correcting misinformation surrounding organ donation: https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/myths-about-organ-donation/. Recent work has examined the impact of this campaign on self‐reported organ donor intentions (Miller et al , ). The study found that dispelling harmful organ donation myths increased intentions for those with favourable attitudes towards organ donation, namely participants who plan to actively opt‐in to the register and those who plan to follow deemed consent when opt‐out legislation is introduced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the relatively novel nature of opt‐out consent legislation in the United Kingdom, few studies have investigated the factors deterring donors under these laws. Although recent research has shown that emotional barriers are significantly heightened for individuals who signal an intention to opt‐out, this study utilized a quantitative measure of emotional barriers, which may limit the depth of understanding into these complex emotive factors (Miller, Currie, & O'Carroll, ). Ultimately, obtaining a rich and nuanced understanding of these factors using qualitative methodology, from a prospective point of view, may enable researchers to identify modifiable barriers that could be targeted before the introduction of opt‐out consent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘It’s like being conscripted, one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men’: A qualitative study into the views of people who plan to opt‐out of organ donation

Miller

Currie

McGregor

et al. 2020

British J Health Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. To overcome the shortage of organ donors, Scotland and England are introducing an opt-out organ donor registration system in 2020. This means individuals will be automatically considered to consent for donation unless they actively opt-out of the register. Research has found that emotional barriers play a key role in donor decisions under opt-in legislation, yet little is known about factors that influence donor decisions under opt-out consent. Our objectives were to investigate attitudes towards organ donation and opt-out consent from individuals who plan to opt-out, and to explore the reasons why they plan to opt-out.Design. Qualitative interview study.Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 individuals from Scotland (n = 14) and England (n = 1) who self-reported the intention to opt-out of the register following the legislative change to opt-out. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.Results. Three main themes were identified: (1) consent versus coercion, which describes the perception of freedom of choice under an opt-in system and fears of 'government interference' and threatened autonomy under opt-out, (2) self-protection, encompassing fears of medical mistrust, bodily integrity concerns, and apprehension regarding the recipient selection process, and lastly, (3) 'riddled with pitfalls', which includes the notion that opt-out consent may increase susceptibility of stigma and reproach when registering an opt-out decision.Conclusions. This study reinforces existing opt-in literature surrounding medical mistrust and bodily integrity concerns. A threat to one's autonomous choice and heightened reactance arising from perceptions of unwarranted government control have emerged as novel barriers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘It’s like being conscripted, one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men’: A qualitative study into the views of people who plan to opt‐out of organ donation

Miller

Currie

McGregor

et al. 2020

British J Health Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Myth-Busting": Myths or incorrect beliefs (e.g., "Doctors may not try their best to save my life if I am registered as an organ donor") are common deterrents of organ donation registration. Miller, Currie and O'Carroll (2018) recently evaluated the effectiveness of myth correcting interventions. They found that for participants who plan to opt-in to the organ donor register or passively register (deemed consent), dispelling myths acted to increase donor intentions.…”

Section: Blood and Organ Donation 42mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood and organ donation: health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions

Ferguson

Murray

O’Carroll

2019

Psychology & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Without a supply of blood, health services could not meet their clinical needs. Similarly, organs for transplantation save and transform lives. Donations are acts of generosity that are traditionally seen as altruistic, and accordingly, interventions to recruit and retain blood and organ donors have focused on altruism. We review the predictors, prevalence and correlates of these two behaviours, how effective interventions have been, and draw common themes. Design: Narrative review. Results: We highlight that both recipients and donors benefit, and as such neither blood nor organ donation is purely altruistic. We also highlight health problems associated with both types of donation. In evaluating interventions, we highlight that a move to an opt-out default for organ donation may not be the simple fix it is believed to be and propose effective interventions to enhance the opt-in default (e.g. social media updates). We show that incentives, text messaging, feedback and a focus on prosocial emotions (e.g., 'warm-glow', 'gratitude') may be effective interventions for both blood and organ donation. Interventions designed to reduce fainting (e.g., water pre-loading) are also effective for blood donation. Conclusions: We conclude that affect is key to understanding both types of donation and in designing effective interventions.

show abstract

“…This is critical, as extensive research has shown emotional beliefs and attitudes, for example, discomfort at thinking about one’s death, to be key determinants of donor behaviour in countries with opt-in legislation [9–11]. Recent work has also confirmed negative emotional beliefs to be heightened for participants who plan to opt-out of the donor register if deemed consent laws are introduced in Scotland and England [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘If I donate my organs it’s a gift, if you take them it’s theft’: a qualitative study of planned donor decisions under opt-out legislation

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is a worldwide shortage of donor organs for transplantation. To overcome this, several countries have introduced an opt-out donor consent system. This system, soon planned for Scotland and England means individuals are automatically deemed to consent for organ donation unless they register an opt-out decision. This study was designed to explore the reasons underpinning donor choices for people who plan to actively opt-in to the register, take no action and be on the register via deemed consent, opt-out, and those who are unsure of their decision.MethodsThis study reports the analysis of free-text responses obtained from a large survey of intentions towards opt-out legislation in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland (n = 1202). Of the n = 1202 participants who completed the questionnaire, n = 923 provided a free text response explaining their views. Thematic analysis was used to explore the reasons why participants plan to: opt-in (n = 646), follow deemed consent (n = 205), opt-out (n = 32) and those who were not sure (n = 40).ResultsA key theme for people planning to opt-in is that it ensures one’s donor choice is explicitly clear and unequivocal. Some regarded deemed consent as unclear and open to ambiguity, thus actively opting-in was viewed as a way of protecting against family uncertainty and interference. For the deemed consent group, a key theme is that it represents a simple effortless choice. This is important from both a pragmatic time-saving point of view and because it protects ambivalent participants from making a challenging emotive choice about organ donation. Key themes for those planning to opt-out relate to fears around medical mistrust and bodily integrity. Notably, both participants who plan to opt-out and opt-in perceived presumed consent as “authoritarian” and a method of increasing Government control of organs. In response, registering an active decision protected their freedom of choice.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the importance of registering deliberate active consent for people who choose opt-in, due to concerns over possible family refusal under deemed consent. These findings could inform the development of communication campaigns that encourage family communication before the implementation of opt-out legislation.

show abstract

‘What if I'm not dead?’ – Myth‐busting and organ donation

Cited by 28 publications

References 18 publications

‘It’s like being conscripted, one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men’: A qualitative study into the views of people who plan to opt‐out of organ donation

‘It’s like being conscripted, one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men’: A qualitative study into the views of people who plan to opt‐out of organ donation

Blood and organ donation: health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions

‘If I donate my organs it’s a gift, if you take them it’s theft’: a qualitative study of planned donor decisions under opt-out legislation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About