title: Community Preferences for the Allocation & Donation of Organs--the PAraDOx Study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Transplantation is the treatment of choice for people with severe organ failure. However, demand substantially exceeds supply of suitable organs; consequently many people wait months, or years to receive an organ. Reasons for the chronic shortage of deceased organ donations are unclear; there appears to be no lack of 'in principle' public support for organ donation.
  
  
  METHODS
  The PAraDOx Study examines community preferences for organ donation policy in Australia. The aims are to 1) determine which factors influence decisions by individuals to offer their organs for donation and 2) determine the criteria by which the community deems the allocation of donor organs to be fair and equitable. Qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to assess community preferences for organ donation and allocation.Focus group participants from the general community, aged between 18-80, will be purposively sampled to ensure a variety of cultural backgrounds and views on organ donation. Each focus group will include a ranking exercise using a modified nominal group technique. Focus groups of organ recipients, their families, and individuals on a transplant waiting list will also be conducted.Using the qualitative work, a discrete choice study will be designed to quantitatively assess community preferences. Discrete choice methods are based on the premise that goods and services can be described in terms of a number of separate attributes. Respondents are presented with a series of choices where levels of attributes are varied, and a mathematical function is estimated to describe numerically the value respondents attach to different options. Two community surveys will be conducted in approximately 1000 respondents each to assess community preferences for organ donation and allocation. A mixed logit model will be used; model results will be expressed as parameter estimates (β) and the odds of choosing one option over an alternative. Trade-offs between attributes will also be calculated.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  By providing a better understanding of current community preferences in relation to organ donation and allocation, the PAraDOx study will highlight options for firstly, increasing the rate of organ donation and secondly, allow for more transparent and equitable policies in relation to organ allocation.
authors: School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. kirsten.howard@sydney.edu.au
authors: Kirsten
authors: K
authors: Howard
authors: Stephen
authors: S
authors: Jan
authors: John
authors: J
authors: Rose
authors: Steven
authors: S
authors: Chadban
authors: Richard D M
authors: RD
authors: Allen
authors: Michelle
authors: M
authors: Irving
authors: Allison
authors: A
authors: Tong
authors: Germaine
authors: G
authors: Wong
authors: Jonathan C
authors: JC
authors: Craig
authors: Alan
authors: A
authors: Cass
references: BMJ. 2008 Feb 2;336(7638):230
references: 18244961
references: BMJ. 2003 May 10;326(7397):1031-3
references: 12742930
references: Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
references: 21669364
references: Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008 Mar;23(3):1039-42
references: 18029378
references: Am J Transplant. 2006 Nov;6(11):2774-85
references: 16952292
references: J Health Econ. 2006 Jul;25(4):599-620
references: 16490267
references: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):249-55
references: 16466276
references: Patient. 2008 Dec 1;1(4):273-82
references: 22272995
references: Aust Health Rev. 2007 Apr;31 Suppl 1:S13-5
references: 17402899
references: Med J Aust. 2005 Mar 7;182(5):204-5
references: 15748126
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
references: 18620460
references: Med J Aust. 2004 Jan 19;180(2):76-8
references: 14723590
references: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010 May;62(5):647-56
references: 20461786
references: Br J Cancer. 2007 Mar 26;96(6):875-81
references: 17342090
references: Health Econ. 2000 Mar;9(2):137-48
references: 10721015
references: Kidney Int. 2006 Mar;69(6):960-2
references: 16482095
references: Patient. 2010 Dec 1;3(4):249-56
references: 22273432
references: BMJ. 2007 Mar 10;334(7592):502-5
references: 17347232
references: Fam Pract. 2007 Oct;24(5):454-60
references: 17675658