Table 3.
Study | No studied | Type of study | Factors associated with consent | % consenting | P value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
With factor | Without factor | |||||
Siminoff et al,w1 2001, US | 420 | Retrospective data collection via chart reviews, and telephone interviews with healthcare practitioners or OPO staff, and face to face interviews with family for all donor eligible deaths | Family believed patient had died when brain stem death was confirmed | 63 | 48* | 0.001 |
DeJong et al,w3 1998, US | 164 | Structured telephone interview with immediate next of kin 4-6 months after death of relative | Family understood that people cannot recover when they are brain stem dead | 80 | 48 | <0.001 |
Family understood someone is brain stem dead even though heart is still beating | 80 | 60 | <0.02 | |||
Rodrigue et al,w4 2006, US | 285 | Retrospective structured telephone interview with next of kin of donor eligible deceased individuals | Adequate knowledge of brain stem death | 71 | 27* | <0.001 |
Explanation of brain stem death given | 74 | 43* | <0.001 | |||
Rosel et al,w5 1999, Spain | 71 | Postal survey sent to all families who had been approached for organ donation at single hospital within 12 month period | Understanding of brain stem death | NA | NA | <0.01 |
Jenkins et al,w6 1998, US | NA | Before and after study after implementation of rapid brain death protocol | After rapid brain stem death protocol with nuclear medicine scan to confirm brain death consent rate increased | 71 | 44 | <0.01 |
Frutos et al,w19 1998-2003, Spain | 268 | Family interview with families of possible donors accepted for transplant | Acceptance of brain stem death | 67 | 51 | 0.044 |
OPO=organ procurement organisation; NA=not available (data not given).
*Calculated from published data.