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

BMC Nephrology

Robert Higgins²  Nick West²  Ala Szczepura⁴  Domenico Moro¹  Anil Gumber⁶  Dennis Leech³  Michael D Clark⁵ 

[1] Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Park House, 40, Egbaston Road, B15 2RT, Birmingham, UK;Nephrology Department, University Hospital, CV2 2DX, Walsgrave, Coventry, UK;Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK;Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK;Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK;Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University Collegiate Campus, 32 Colliegiate Crescent, Room 205, S10 2BP, Sheffield, UK

关键词: Stakeholder;    Choice experiment;    Allocation;    Renal transplant;   

Others  :  1083059
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2369-13-152

 received in 2011-03-21, accepted in 2012-10-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Policies for allocating deceased donor kidneys have recently shifted from allocation based on Human Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) tissue matching in the UK and USA. Newer allocation algorithms incorporate waiting time as a primary factor, and in the UK, young adults are also favoured. However, there is little contemporary UK research on the views of stakeholders in the transplant process to inform future allocation policy. This research project aimed to address this issue.

Methods

Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) questionnaires were used to establish priorities for kidney transplantation among different stakeholder groups in the UK. Questionnaires were targeted at patients, carers, donors / relatives of deceased donors, and healthcare professionals. Attributes considered included: waiting time; donor-recipient HLA match; whether a recipient had dependents; diseases affecting life expectancy; and diseases affecting quality of life.

Results

Responses were obtained from 908 patients (including 98 ethnic minorities); 41 carers; 48 donors / relatives of deceased donors; and 113 healthcare professionals. The patient group demonstrated statistically different preferences for every attribute (i.e. significantly different from zero) so implying that changes in given attributes affected preferences, except when prioritizing those with no rather than moderate diseases affecting quality of life. The attributes valued highly related to waiting time, tissue match, prioritizing those with dependents, and prioritizing those with moderate rather than severe diseases affecting life expectancy. Some preferences differed between healthcare professionals and patients, and ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority patients. Only non-ethnic minority patients and healthcare professionals clearly prioritized those with better tissue matches.

Conclusions

Our econometric results are broadly supportive of the 2006 shift in UK transplant policy which emphasized prioritizing the young and long waiters. However, our findings suggest the need for a further review in the light of observed differences in preferences amongst ethnic minorities, and also because those with dependents may be a further priority.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Clark et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]NHS Blood and Transplant: Weekly Statistics. 2011. http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/statistics/latest_statistics/latest_statistics.jsp webcite
• [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 webcite
• [3]Higgins RM, West N, Edmunds ME, Dukes DC, Kashi H, Jurewicz A, Lam FT: Effect of a strict HLA matching policy on the distribution of cadaveric kidney transplants to Indo-Asian and white European recipients: regional study. British Medical J 1997, 315:1354-1355.
• [4]Raleigh VS: Diabetes and hypertension in Britain’s ethnic minorities: implications for the future of renal services. British Medical J 1997, 314:209-212.
• [5]Norris KC, Tareen N, Martins D, Variri ND: Implications of ethnicity for the treatment of hypertensive kidney disease, with an emphasis on African Americans. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2008, 4(10):538-549.
• [6]Cappuccio FP, Oakeshott P, Strazzullo P, Kerry SM: Application of the Framington risk estimates to ethnic minorities for primary prevention of heart disease in general practice. British Medical J 2002, 327(7420):919.
• [7]Koenne RA: Should the allocation of cadaveric kidneys for transplantation be based on HLA matching? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002, 17(5):884-886.
• [8]NHS Blood and Transplant [formally UK Transplant]: Kidney allocation scheme. 2006. http://www.uktransplant.org.uk-ukt-about_transplants-organ_allocation-kidney webcite_(renal)-renal_organ_sharing_principles-kidney_allocation_scheme_2006-v8.doc.url
• [9]Louis ON, Sanker P, Ubel PA: Kidney transplantation candidates’ views of the transplant allocation system. J Gen Intern Med 1997, 12:478-484.
• [10]Browning CJ, Thomas SA: Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions. Social Sci Med 2001, 52:853-861.
• [11]Geddes CC, Rodger RS, Smith C, Ganai A: Allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 2005, 46(5):949-956.
• [12]Rubin G, Bate A, George A, Shackley P, Hall N: Preferences for access to the GP: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract 2006, 56:743-748.
• [13]Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Kodman X, Teerwattananon Y: Criteria for priority setting of HIV / AIDS interventions in Thailand. BMC Heal Serv Res 2010, 10:197. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Allepuz A, Espallargues M, Moharra M, Comas M, Pons JM: Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroscopies and cataract surgery. BMC Heal Serv Res 2008, 8:76. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Bennett R, Savani S: Factors influencing the willingness to donate body parts for Transplantation. J Health and Social Policy 2004, 18(3):61-85.
• [16]Ratcliffe J, Buxton M: Patients’ preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology. An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assessment in Health Care 1999, 15(2):340-351.
• [17]Ratcliffe J: Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Heal Econ 2000, 9:137-148.
• [18]Clark MD, Gumber AK, Leech D, Moro D, Szczepura AK, West N, Higgins RM: Prioritising patients for renal transplantation? Analysis of patient preferences for kidney allocation according to ethnicity and gender. Diversity in Health and Care 2009, 6:181-191.
• [19]Davison SN, Kromm SK, Currie GR: 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. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplant 2010, 25:2334-2341.
• [20]Bradley M: User’s manual for the speed version 2.1 stated preference editor and designer. Hague Consulting Group. 1991.
• [21]Huber J, Zwerina K: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Marketing Res 1996, XXXIII:307-317.
• [22]Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K, Ryan M: Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. In Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health Care. Edited by Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya . Springer; 2008:13-46.
• [23]Lloyd AJ: Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Heal Econ 2003, 12:393-402.
• [24]Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere J: Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Mark 2005, 22:459-470.
• [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 webcite
• [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 webcite
• [28]Tso PL, Dar WA, Henry ML: With respect to Elderly Patients: Finding Kidneys in the Context of New Allocation Concepts. Am J Transplant 2012, 12(5):1091-1098.
• [29]Neuberger J: Rationing life-saving resources—how should allocation policies be assessed in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Int 2012, 25(1):3-6.
• [30]Ashby VB, Port FK, Wolfe RA, Wynn JJ, Williams WW, Roberts JP, Leichtman AB: Transplanting kidneys without points for HLA-B matching: consequences of the policy change. Am J Transplant 2011, 11(8):1712-1718.
• [31]Ross LF, Parker W, Veatch RM, Gentry SE, Thistlethwaite JR Jr: Equal opportunity supplemented by fair innings: equity and efficiency in allocating deceased donor kidneys. Am J Transplant 2012, 12(8):2115-2124.
• [32]Ladkin K, Hanto DW: Rational rationing or discrimination: balancing equity and efficiency considerations in kidney allocation. Am J Transplant 2011, 11(11):2317-2321.