Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan;104(1):201-210.
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002809.

Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes When Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Groups and a Randomized Survey

Affiliations

Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes When Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Groups and a Randomized Survey

Cory R Schaffhausen et al. Transplantation. 2020 Jan.

Abstract

Background: In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results.

Methods: First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making.

Results: One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95).

Conclusions: The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Mockup #1 randomly shown to survey participants, representing a control image with new graphical elements omitted. Color survey image is shown in grayscale.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Mockup #3 randomly shown to survey participants, including the new graphical element of the impact statement. Color survey image is shown in grayscale.
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.
Mockup #5 randomly shown to survey participants, including the new graphical elements of the data table and uncertainty statement. Color survey image is shown in grayscale.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schold JD, Srinivas TR, Howard RJ, et al. The association of candidate mortality rates with kidney transplant outcomes and center performance evaluations. Transplantation. 2008;85:1–6. - PubMed
    1. Kasiske BL, Wey A, Salkowski N, et al. Seeking new answers to old questions about public reporting of transplant program performance in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2019;19:317–323. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patzer RE. Quality metrics in transplantation—a new emphasis on transplant access. Am J Transplant. 2018;18:1301–1302. - PubMed
    1. Greenwald M Shifting the conversation on outcomes reporting. Am J Transplant. 2018;18:1303–1304. - PubMed
    1. Brett KE, Ritchie LJ, Ertel E, et al. Quality metrics in solid organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transplantation. 2018;102: e308–e330. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms