Who should be prioritized for renal transplantation?: Analysis of key stakeholder preferences using discrete choice experiments

BMC Nephrology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Clark, Michael D ^a   Leech, Dennis ^b   Gumber, Anil ^c   Moro, Domenico ^d   Szczepura, Ala ^a   West, Nick ^e   Higgins, Robert ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^c SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL COVENTRY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allocation; Choice experiment; Renal transplant; Stakeholder

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CADAVER DONOR; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; DISEASE SEVERITY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HLA SYSTEM; HUMAN; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; TISSUE TYPING; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CAREGIVERS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENTS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84869884562     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712369     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-13-152     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. NHS Blood and Transplant, Weekly Statistics 2011 http://www.uktransplant. org.uk/ukt/statistics/latest-statistics/latest-statistics.jsp
2. Department of Health, Organs for transplants: a report from the Organ Donation Taskforce 2008 http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod-consum-dh/groups/dh- digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh-082120.pdf
3. Effect of a strict HLA matching policy on the distribution of cadaveric kidney transplants to Indo-Asian and white European recipients: regional study. Higgins RM, West N, Edmunds ME, Dukes DC, Kashi H, Jurewicz A, Lam FT, British Medical J 1997 315 1354 1355 10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1354 (Pubitemid 27499741)
4. Diabetes and hypertension in Britain's ethnic minorities: implications for the future of renal services. Raleigh VS, British Medical J 1997 314 209 212 10.1136/bmj.314.7075.209
5. Implications of ethnicity for the treatment of hypertensive kidney disease, with an emphasis on African Americans. Norris KC, Tareen N, Martins D, Variri ND, Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2008 4 10 538 549 18679391
6. Application of the Framington risk estimates to ethnic minorities for primary prevention of heart disease in general practice. Cappuccio FP, Oakeshott P, Strazzullo P, Kerry SM, British Medical J 2002 327 7420 919
7. Should the allocation of cadaveric kidneys for transplantation be based on HLA matching? Koenne RA, Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002 17 5 884 886 10.1093/ndt/17.5.884 11981078
8. NHS Blood and Transplant [formally UK Transplant], Kidney allocation scheme 2006 http://www.uktransplant.org.uk-ukt-about-transplants-organ- allocation-kidney -(renal)-renal-organ-sharing-principles-kidney-allocation- scheme-2006-v8.doc.url
9. Kidney transplantation candidates' views of the transplant allocation system. Louis ON, Sanker P, Ubel PA, J Gen Intern Med 1997 12 478 484 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00086.x 9276653 (Pubitemid 27360655)
10. Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions. Browning CJ, Thomas SA, Social Sci Med 2001 52 853 861 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00187-8 (Pubitemid 32012448)
11. Allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation. Geddes CC, Rodger RS, Smith C, Ganai A, Am J Kidney Dis 2005 46 5 949 956 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.07.031 16253737 (Pubitemid 41505471)
12. Preferences for access to the GP: a discrete choice experiment. Rubin G, Bate A, George A, Shackley P, Hall N, Br J Gen Pract 2006 56 743 748 17007703 (Pubitemid 44540902)
13. Criteria for priority setting of HIV / AIDS interventions in Thailand. Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Kodman X, Teerwattananon Y, BMC Heal Serv Res 2010 10 197 10.1186/1472-6963-10-197
14. Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroscopies and cataract surgery. Allepuz A, Espallargues M, Moharra M, Comas M, Pons JM, BMC Heal Serv Res 2008 8 76 10.1186/1472-6963-8-76 (Pubitemid 351643683)
15. Factors influencing the willingness to donate body parts for Transplantation. Bennett R, Savani S, J Health and Social Policy 2004 18 3 61 85 10.1300/J045v18n03-04 (Pubitemid 38963168)
16. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology. An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, Int J Technol Assessment in Health Care 1999 15 2 340 351 (Pubitemid 29380444)
17. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Ratcliffe J, Heal Econ 2000 9 137 148 10.1002/(SICI)1099- 1050(200003)9:2<137::AID-HEC489>3.0.CO;2-1 (Pubitemid 30148160)
18. Prioritising patients for renal transplantation? Analysis of patient preferences for kidney allocation according to ethnicity and gender. Clark MD, Gumber AK, Leech D, Moro D, Szczepura AK, West N, Higgins RM, Diversity in Health and Care 2009 6 181 191
19. Patient and health professional preferences for organ allocation and procurement, end-of-life care and organization of care for patients with chronic kidney disease using a discrete choice experiment. Davison SN, Kromm SK, Currie GR, Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplant 2010 25 2334 2341 10.1093/ndt/gfq072
20. Bradley M, User's manual for the speed version 2.1 stated preference editor and designer. Hague Consulting Group 1991 23413273
21. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Huber J, Zwerina K, J Marketing Res 1996 XXXIII 307 317
22. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K, Ryan M, Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health Care Springer, Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya, 2008 13 46
23. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Lloyd AJ, Heal Econ 2003 12 393 402 10.1002/hec.772 (Pubitemid 36603550)
24. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere J, Int J Res Mark 2005 22 459 470 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003 (Pubitemid 43045893)
25. Wooldridge JM, Economic analysis of cross section and panel data Cambridge MA: MIT press 2002
26. Byrne C, Ford D, Glig J, Ansell D, Feehally J, ESRD incident rates in 2008: national and centre-specific analyses. Chapter 3, UK Renal Registry report 2008 http://www.renalreg.org
27. Byrne C, Steenkamp R, Castledine C, Ansell D, Feehally J, ESRD prevalent rates in 2008 national and centre-specific analyses. Chapter 4, UK Renal Registry report 2008 http://www.renalreg.org
28. With respect to Elderly Patients: Finding Kidneys in the Context of New Allocation Concepts. Tso PL, Dar WA, Henry ML, Am J Transplant 2012 12 5 1091 1098 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03956.x 22300478
29. Rationing life-saving resources-how should allocation policies be assessed in solid organ transplantation. Neuberger J, Transpl Int 2012 25 1 3 6 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01327.x 21902728
30. Transplanting kidneys without points for HLA-B matching: consequences of the policy change. Ashby VB, Port FK, Wolfe RA, Wynn JJ, Williams WW, Roberts JP, Leichtman AB, Am J Transplant 2011 11 8 1712 1718 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011. 03606.x 21672159
31. Equal opportunity supplemented by fair innings: equity and efficiency in allocating deceased donor kidneys. Ross LF, Parker W, Veatch RM, Gentry SE, Thistlethwaite JR Jr, Am J Transplant 2012 12 8 2115 2124 10.1111/j.1600-6143. 2012.04141.x 22703559
32. Rational rationing or discrimination: balancing equity and efficiency considerations in kidney allocation. Ladkin K, Hanto DW, Am J Transplant 2011 11 11 2317 2321 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03726.x 21906253