. 2014 Mar 14;3:8. doi: 10.1186/2047-1440-3-8

Table 2.

Description of the interventions on organ and tissue donation with comparison groups

Authors (year); country	Purposes	Populations ( n )	Interventions	Follow-up	Behavior change technique	Study methodology	Outcomes	Results
Authors (year); country	Purposes	Populations ( n )	Interventions	Follow-up	Behavior change technique	Study methodology	Outcomes	(Experimental versus Control)
Dettle, Sagel and Chrysler (1994); United States	To gain a better understanding of health care professionals’ experience, knowledge, attitudes, and comfort level regarding organ and tissue donation	Nurses and Chaplains (n = 343)	Educational:	6 months	• Provide instruction	Health professionals survey	Approached family	Experimental 18% → 38% (P = .039)
			• Formal in-service on organ and tissue donation					Experimental 18% → 38% (P = .039)
			• Formal in-service on organ and tissue donation					Control 4% → 25% (P < .001)
			• Unit meeting addressing donation issues
			• Dealing with a family of an actual donor
Kittur, McMenamin and Knott (1990); United States	To evaluate the impact of an organ donor and tissue donor advocacy program on community hospitals	Hospital staff: physicians, nurses and administrators (n = not mentioned)	Educational:	12 months	• Provide instruction	Not mentioned	Referred potential donor	44 donors versus 2 donors
			• Hospital’s organ and tissue donation policies and procedures		• Provide contingent rewards
					• Teach to use prompts or cues
							Organ and/or tissue donor recovered	18 donors versus 1 donor
			• Sending letter of gratitude to requestors
			• Sending letter reminding to request all eligible patients
			Organizational:
			• Developing a donor advocate role
Light (1987); United States	To evaluate the efficacy of including printed criteria and procedures with the autopsy permits as a simple, inexpensive method of increasing cornea donation	Residents (n = 84)	Educational:	4 months	• Provide information on consequence	Eye bank data analysis	Organ and/or tissue donor recovered	Experimental 1.8% → 10.2% (P = .009)
			• Instruction for cornea donation and a checklist of donation procedures		• Provide instruction			Experimental 1.8% → 10.2% (P = .009)
					• Provide instruction			Control 7.1% → 8.5% (not significant)
Nelson, Marymont, Durand, Reyes and Davis (1992); United States	To examine the organ procurement organization’s educational activities and their effects on attitudes, knowledge, and referral behavior	Nurses, physicians and chaplains (n = 265)	Educational:	Not mentioned	• Intervention not described	Health professionals survey	Approached family	59% versus 46% (P = .027)
			• Continuing medical education
			• Newsletters
			• Other publications
			• Requestor’s workshop
			• In-service training session
			• Others programs
			• Others programs				Referred potential donor	46% versus 9% (P = .001)
Riker and White (1995); United States	To evaluate physician response to an educational program to increase referral of potential organ or issue donors in an emergency department	Physicians (n = not mentioned)	Educational:	6 months	• Provide instruction	Hospital charts review	Approached family	65% versus 6.6% (P = .001)
			• One-hour conference on the physician’s role in requesting donation and review the criteria for donation and services available from transplant program				Approached family	65% versus 6.6% (P = .001)
							Obtained donation consent	32% versus 6.6% (P = .08)
							Organ and/or tissue donor recovered	48% versus 5.5% (P = .003)