Excluding patients from transplant due to social support

Results from a national survey of transplant providers

Keren Ladin*, Joanna Emerson, Kelsey Berry, Zeeshan Butt, Elisa Gordon, Norman Daniels, Tara A. Lavelle, Douglas W. Hanto

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6% (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6%-12.2%), and by center (21.7% among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3% vs 67.6%). Nearly 25% believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3% felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4% were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P =.03). Furthermore, 69.2% supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-203
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Transplantation
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Social Support
Transplants
Guidelines
Social Class
Surveys and Questionnaires
Transplantation

Keywords

  • clinical decision-making
  • ethics
  • ethics and public policy
  • guidelines
  • health services and outcomes research
  • kidney transplantation/nephrology
  • organ transplantation in general
  • patient characteristics
  • recipient selection
  • social sciences

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Transplantation
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Ladin, Keren ; Emerson, Joanna ; Berry, Kelsey ; Butt, Zeeshan ; Gordon, Elisa ; Daniels, Norman ; Lavelle, Tara A. ; Hanto, Douglas W. / Excluding patients from transplant due to social support : Results from a national survey of transplant providers. In: American Journal of Transplantation. 2019 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 193-203.
@article{c6cc09857efe4cf99e133fb16f2ffce8,
title = "Excluding patients from transplant due to social support: Results from a national survey of transplant providers",
abstract = "Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6{\%} (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6{\%}-12.2{\%}), and by center (21.7{\%} among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3{\%} vs 67.6{\%}). Nearly 25{\%} believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3{\%} felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4{\%} were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P =.03). Furthermore, 69.2{\%} supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.",
keywords = "clinical decision-making, ethics, ethics and public policy, guidelines, health services and outcomes research, kidney transplantation/nephrology, organ transplantation in general, patient characteristics, recipient selection, social sciences",
author = "Keren Ladin and Joanna Emerson and Kelsey Berry and Zeeshan Butt and Elisa Gordon and Norman Daniels and Lavelle, {Tara A.} and Hanto, {Douglas W.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ajt.14962",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "193--203",
journal = "American Journal of Transplantation",
issn = "1600-6135",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Excluding patients from transplant due to social support : Results from a national survey of transplant providers. / Ladin, Keren; Emerson, Joanna; Berry, Kelsey; Butt, Zeeshan; Gordon, Elisa; Daniels, Norman; Lavelle, Tara A.; Hanto, Douglas W.

In: American Journal of Transplantation, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 193-203.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Excluding patients from transplant due to social support

T2 - Results from a national survey of transplant providers

AU - Ladin, Keren

AU - Emerson, Joanna

AU - Berry, Kelsey

AU - Butt, Zeeshan

AU - Gordon, Elisa

AU - Daniels, Norman

AU - Lavelle, Tara A.

AU - Hanto, Douglas W.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6% (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6%-12.2%), and by center (21.7% among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3% vs 67.6%). Nearly 25% believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3% felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4% were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P =.03). Furthermore, 69.2% supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.

AB - Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6% (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6%-12.2%), and by center (21.7% among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3% vs 67.6%). Nearly 25% believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3% felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4% were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P =.03). Furthermore, 69.2% supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.

KW - clinical decision-making

KW - ethics

KW - ethics and public policy

KW - guidelines

KW - health services and outcomes research

KW - kidney transplantation/nephrology

KW - organ transplantation in general

KW - patient characteristics

KW - recipient selection

KW - social sciences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050554434&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050554434&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ajt.14962

DO - 10.1111/ajt.14962

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 193

EP - 203

JO - American Journal of Transplantation

JF - American Journal of Transplantation

SN - 1600-6135

IS - 1

ER -