Randomised, Double Blind, Controlled Trial of the Provision of Information about the Benefits of Organ Donation during a Family Donation Conversation.
Philpot SJ, Aranha S, et al.PLoS ONE 2016 [Electronic Resource] 11(6): e0155778.
Aims
To compare the attitudes of community members on organ donation when varied recorded family donation conversations are provided.
Interventions
Participants were randomly allocated to view either a control video, versus a supportive video that in addition to information about the organ donation process, contained information about the potential benefits of donation and transplantation, the rarity of the opportunity for donation, and the need for organs for transplantation.
Participants
474 individuals from an Australian commercial organisation.
Outcomes
Measured outcomes included uptake of factual information by study participants, level of discomfort and general attitudes of study participants, perceived amount of information provided by the doctor, and perceived influence and persuasion by the doctor.
Follow-up
Not described
CET Conclusions
This Australian study compares attitudes of participants who watched a video of a simulated family donation conversation in which the benefits of organ donation were discussed versus a conversation without positive information about organ donation. The report did not include information on the randomisation and allocation process. The study is described as double-blinded although no further information was provided about how double-blinding was accomplished. The statistical analysis was described as blinded and the sample size calculations showed that 580 participants were needed to provide 80% power. The study population included 474 participants recruited from a large commercial organisation. Results show that participants who watched the supportive video were more likely to agree that the doctor was trying to convince the patient to agree to organ donation but that the level of discomfort experienced by participants watching the video was equal between groups. Both groups equally felt that the information provided to the patient was enough to make a decision and that the doctor cared about the patient and his family.
Data analysis
Per protocol analysis
Trial registration
None