A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding Variation in Social Support Requirements and Implications for Access to Transplantation in the United States

Keren Ladin*, Satia A. Marotta, Zeeshan Butt, Elisa J. Gordon, Norman Daniels, Tara A. Lavelle, Douglas W. Hanto

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Social support is a key component of transplantation evaluation in the United States. Social support definitions and evaluation procedures require examination to achieve clear, consistent implementation. We surveyed psychosocial clinicians from the Society for Transplant Social Workers and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their definitions and evaluation procedures for using social support to determine transplant eligibility. Bivariate statistical analysis was used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. Among 276 psychosocial clinicians (50.2% response rate), 92% had ruled out patients from transplantation due to inadequate support. Social support definitions varied significantly: 10% of respondents indicated their center lacked a definition. Key domains of social support included informational, emotional, instrumental, motivational, paid support, and the patient’s importance to others. Almost half of clinicians (47%) rarely or never requested second opinions when excluding patients due to social support. Confidence and perceived clarity and consistency in center guidelines were significantly associated with informing patients when support contributed to negative wait-listing decisions (P =.001). Clinicians who excluded fewer patients because of social support offered significantly more supportive health care (P =.02). Clearer definitions and more supportive care may reduce the number of patients excluded from transplant candidacy due to inadequate social support.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalProgress in Transplantation
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Social Support
Transplantation
Transplants
Referral and Consultation
Guidelines
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • access
  • and evaluation
  • candidate evaluation
  • disparities
  • ethics
  • ethics
  • health services research
  • health-care quality
  • heart
  • justice
  • kidney
  • liver
  • lung
  • mixed-methods
  • organ transplantation
  • psychosocial
  • psychosocial
  • qualitative
  • social support
  • social work
  • transplant candidate
  • transplant evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation

Cite this

@article{e887e49d122a4829abd3a2054f5e9c71,
title = "A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding Variation in Social Support Requirements and Implications for Access to Transplantation in the United States",
abstract = "Social support is a key component of transplantation evaluation in the United States. Social support definitions and evaluation procedures require examination to achieve clear, consistent implementation. We surveyed psychosocial clinicians from the Society for Transplant Social Workers and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their definitions and evaluation procedures for using social support to determine transplant eligibility. Bivariate statistical analysis was used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. Among 276 psychosocial clinicians (50.2{\%} response rate), 92{\%} had ruled out patients from transplantation due to inadequate support. Social support definitions varied significantly: 10{\%} of respondents indicated their center lacked a definition. Key domains of social support included informational, emotional, instrumental, motivational, paid support, and the patient’s importance to others. Almost half of clinicians (47{\%}) rarely or never requested second opinions when excluding patients due to social support. Confidence and perceived clarity and consistency in center guidelines were significantly associated with informing patients when support contributed to negative wait-listing decisions (P =.001). Clinicians who excluded fewer patients because of social support offered significantly more supportive health care (P =.02). Clearer definitions and more supportive care may reduce the number of patients excluded from transplant candidacy due to inadequate social support.",
keywords = "access, and evaluation, candidate evaluation, disparities, ethics, ethics, health services research, health-care quality, heart, justice, kidney, liver, lung, mixed-methods, organ transplantation, psychosocial, psychosocial, qualitative, social support, social work, transplant candidate, transplant evaluation",
author = "Keren Ladin and Marotta, {Satia A.} and Zeeshan Butt and Gordon, {Elisa J.} and Norman Daniels and Lavelle, {Tara A.} and Hanto, {Douglas W.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1526924819874387",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Progress in Transplantation",
issn = "1526-9248",
publisher = "InnoVision Communications",

}

A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding Variation in Social Support Requirements and Implications for Access to Transplantation in the United States. / Ladin, Keren; Marotta, Satia A.; Butt, Zeeshan; Gordon, Elisa J.; Daniels, Norman; Lavelle, Tara A.; Hanto, Douglas W.

In: Progress in Transplantation, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding Variation in Social Support Requirements and Implications for Access to Transplantation in the United States

AU - Ladin, Keren

AU - Marotta, Satia A.

AU - Butt, Zeeshan

AU - Gordon, Elisa J.

AU - Daniels, Norman

AU - Lavelle, Tara A.

AU - Hanto, Douglas W.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Social support is a key component of transplantation evaluation in the United States. Social support definitions and evaluation procedures require examination to achieve clear, consistent implementation. We surveyed psychosocial clinicians from the Society for Transplant Social Workers and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their definitions and evaluation procedures for using social support to determine transplant eligibility. Bivariate statistical analysis was used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. Among 276 psychosocial clinicians (50.2% response rate), 92% had ruled out patients from transplantation due to inadequate support. Social support definitions varied significantly: 10% of respondents indicated their center lacked a definition. Key domains of social support included informational, emotional, instrumental, motivational, paid support, and the patient’s importance to others. Almost half of clinicians (47%) rarely or never requested second opinions when excluding patients due to social support. Confidence and perceived clarity and consistency in center guidelines were significantly associated with informing patients when support contributed to negative wait-listing decisions (P =.001). Clinicians who excluded fewer patients because of social support offered significantly more supportive health care (P =.02). Clearer definitions and more supportive care may reduce the number of patients excluded from transplant candidacy due to inadequate social support.

AB - Social support is a key component of transplantation evaluation in the United States. Social support definitions and evaluation procedures require examination to achieve clear, consistent implementation. We surveyed psychosocial clinicians from the Society for Transplant Social Workers and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their definitions and evaluation procedures for using social support to determine transplant eligibility. Bivariate statistical analysis was used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. Among 276 psychosocial clinicians (50.2% response rate), 92% had ruled out patients from transplantation due to inadequate support. Social support definitions varied significantly: 10% of respondents indicated their center lacked a definition. Key domains of social support included informational, emotional, instrumental, motivational, paid support, and the patient’s importance to others. Almost half of clinicians (47%) rarely or never requested second opinions when excluding patients due to social support. Confidence and perceived clarity and consistency in center guidelines were significantly associated with informing patients when support contributed to negative wait-listing decisions (P =.001). Clinicians who excluded fewer patients because of social support offered significantly more supportive health care (P =.02). Clearer definitions and more supportive care may reduce the number of patients excluded from transplant candidacy due to inadequate social support.

KW - access

KW - and evaluation

KW - candidate evaluation

KW - disparities

KW - ethics

KW - ethics

KW - health services research

KW - health-care quality

KW - heart

KW - justice

KW - kidney

KW - liver

KW - lung

KW - mixed-methods

KW - organ transplantation

KW - psychosocial

KW - psychosocial

KW - qualitative

KW - social support

KW - social work

KW - transplant candidate

KW - transplant evaluation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074022825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074022825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1526924819874387

DO - 10.1177/1526924819874387

M3 - Article

C2 - 31581889

AN - SCOPUS:85074022825

JO - Progress in Transplantation

JF - Progress in Transplantation

SN - 1526-9248

ER -