TABLE 2.

Modifiable clinical factors (procedural) and societal factors (distributive) associated with providers’ perception that using social support (SS) in listing decisions is fair

	Belief that using SS to determine eligibility for transplant is fair (odds ratios)
	Societal factors: distributive concerns	Modifiable clinical factors: procedural concerns	Combined model
Distributive factors
Demonstrating SS is more challenging for some patients, based on personal characteristics such as age, SES, or sex	0.31*** (0.17, 0.59)		0.32*** (0.16, 0.65)
Lifestyle choices (eg, substance use) influence adequacy of patients’ SS	1.61 (0.51, 5.09)		1.36 (0.37, 4.97)
Most patients can change their level of SS	2.56*** (1.42, 4.62)		1.89* (0.99, 3.61)
Patients with high SES are more often able to demonstrate adequate SS than patients with low SES	0.69 (0.19, 2.55)		0.69 (0.18, 2.68)
Modifiable clinical factors procedural factors
Evaluation of SS is based on clear, detailed, consistent center policy		3.04*** (1.42, 6.53)	2.29** (1.00, 5.25)
Process of assessing SS at center is unbiased and impartial		2.82** (1.11, 7.23)	2.20 (0.84, 5.74)
Patients are always informed if denial is due to lack of SS		1.89* (0.98–3.63)	2.34** (1.17, 4.68)
Respondent characteristics
Psychosocial providers	2.15** (1.14, 4.03)	2.94*** (1.48, 5.82)	2.54** (1.24, 5.22)
Involved in thoracic organ program	1.16 (0.44, 3.06)	0.99 (0.38, 2.59)	0.89 (0.32, 2.45)
	N = 496, R2 = 0.14	N = 482, R2 = 0.14	N = 468, R2 = 0.20

Logistic regression models predict the probability of agreeing or strongly agreeing that it is fair to use social support to determine patient eligibility for transplant. Indicators for respondent United Network for Organ Sharing Region were included in the model but did not achieve significance. Full questions and complete results, including 95% confidence intervals, are available upon request. SES, socioeconomic status.

^*P < .10,

^**P < .05,

^***P < .01.