Loading…

Exploring the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision-makers involved in decisions about deceased organ donation: a qualitative study protocol

IntroductionIn Canada, deceased organ donation provides over 80% of transplanted organs. At the time of death, families, friends or others assume responsibility as substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to consent to organ donation. Despite their central role in this process, little is known about what b...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMJ open 2019-12, Vol.9 (12), p.e034594-e034594
Main Authors: Crawshaw, Jacob, Presseau, Justin, van Allen, Zack, Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia, Jordison, Kim, English, Shane, Fergusson, Dean A, Lauzier, Francois, Turgeon, Alexis F, Sarti, Aimee J, Martin, Claudio, D'Aragon, Frédérick, Li, Alvin Ho-ting, Knoll, Greg, Ball, Ian, Brehaut, Jamie, Burns, Karen E A, Fortin, Marie-Chantal, Weiss, Matthew, Meade, Maureen, Marsolais, Pierre, Shemie, Sam, Zaabat, Sanabelle, Dhanani, Sonny, Kitto, Simon C, Chassé, Michaël
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-162e40af46370985b0404bfd63492406452b0a1422614d22b2147b64bc0566e23
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-162e40af46370985b0404bfd63492406452b0a1422614d22b2147b64bc0566e23
container_end_page e034594
container_issue 12
container_start_page e034594
container_title BMJ open
container_volume 9
creator Crawshaw, Jacob
Presseau, Justin
van Allen, Zack
Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia
Jordison, Kim
English, Shane
Fergusson, Dean A
Lauzier, Francois
Turgeon, Alexis F
Sarti, Aimee J
Martin, Claudio
D'Aragon, Frédérick
Li, Alvin Ho-ting
Knoll, Greg
Ball, Ian
Brehaut, Jamie
Burns, Karen E A
Fortin, Marie-Chantal
Weiss, Matthew
Meade, Maureen
Marsolais, Pierre
Shemie, Sam
Zaabat, Sanabelle
Dhanani, Sonny
Kitto, Simon C
Chassé, Michaël
description IntroductionIn Canada, deceased organ donation provides over 80% of transplanted organs. At the time of death, families, friends or others assume responsibility as substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to consent to organ donation. Despite their central role in this process, little is known about what barriers, enablers and beliefs influence decision-making among SDMs. This study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of SDMs involved in making decisions around the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, end-of-life care and deceased organ donation.Methods and analysisSDMs of 60 patients admitted to intensive care units will be enrolled for this study. Ten hospitals across five provinces in Canada in a prospective multicentre qualitative cohort study. We will conduct semistructured telephone interviews in English or French with SDMs between 6 and 8 weeks after the patient’s death. Our sampling frame will stratify SDMs into three groups: SDMs who were not approached for organ donation; SDMs who were approached and consented to donate and SDMs who were approached but did not consent to donate. We will use two complementary theoretical frameworks—the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework— to inform our interview guide. Interview data will be analysed using deductive directed content analysis and inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Research Ethics Board. The findings from this study will help identify key factors affecting substitute decision-making in deceased organ donation, reasons for non-consent and barriers to achieve congruency between SDM and patient wishes. Ultimately, these data will contribute to the development and evaluation of tools and training for healthcare providers to support SDMs in making decisions about organ donation.Trial registration number NCT03850847.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034594
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_84c5b2e014e945a08f2125a3c66733fe</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_84c5b2e014e945a08f2125a3c66733fe</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2330598971</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-162e40af46370985b0404bfd63492406452b0a1422614d22b2147b64bc0566e23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks1u1DAUhSMEolXpEyChSGzYpPXPtZOwQEJVgUqV2MDaspObqYeMndrOqH2VPi0eMgwtC0Q2sX2-c3wTnaJ4TckZpVyem83aT-gqRmhbEQ6ihWfFMSMAlSRCPH-0PipOY1yT_GRKCPayOOK0qaFp2-Pi4fJuGn2wblWmGyzxbsJg0XUYS-36Mu_ihF2y23zghzLOJiab5oRlj52N1rtqo39kqrRu68ct9nlx0HKI8XPa7VHHrPmw0ln2Tqcsvy91eTvr0Sa9u6GMae7vyyn45Ds_vipeDHqMeLp_nxTfP11-u_hSXX_9fHXx8boyom5SRSVDIHoAyWvSNsIQIGCGXnJoGRAJghmiKTAmKfSMGUahNhJMR4SUyPhJcbXk9l6v1RTsRod75bVVvw7yyEqHZLsRVQOdMAwJBWxBaNIMjDKheSdlzfmAOevDkjXNZoN9hy4FPT4Jfao4e6NWfqtqQhoAmgPe7QOCv50xJrWxscNx1A79HBXjnIi2aesd-vYvdO3n4PKvyhTUNdS8EZniC9UFH2PA4TAMJWpXJbWvktpVSS1Vyq43j7_j4PldnAycLUB2_2fi-R_DYdB_OX4C9MnmmA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2347747385</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Exploring the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision-makers involved in decisions about deceased organ donation: a qualitative study protocol</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><source>BMJ Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>British Medical Journal Open Access Journals</source><creator>Crawshaw, Jacob ; Presseau, Justin ; van Allen, Zack ; Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia ; Jordison, Kim ; English, Shane ; Fergusson, Dean A ; Lauzier, Francois ; Turgeon, Alexis F ; Sarti, Aimee J ; Martin, Claudio ; D'Aragon, Frédérick ; Li, Alvin Ho-ting ; Knoll, Greg ; Ball, Ian ; Brehaut, Jamie ; Burns, Karen E A ; Fortin, Marie-Chantal ; Weiss, Matthew ; Meade, Maureen ; Marsolais, Pierre ; Shemie, Sam ; Zaabat, Sanabelle ; Dhanani, Sonny ; Kitto, Simon C ; Chassé, Michaël</creator><creatorcontrib>Crawshaw, Jacob ; Presseau, Justin ; van Allen, Zack ; Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia ; Jordison, Kim ; English, Shane ; Fergusson, Dean A ; Lauzier, Francois ; Turgeon, Alexis F ; Sarti, Aimee J ; Martin, Claudio ; D'Aragon, Frédérick ; Li, Alvin Ho-ting ; Knoll, Greg ; Ball, Ian ; Brehaut, Jamie ; Burns, Karen E A ; Fortin, Marie-Chantal ; Weiss, Matthew ; Meade, Maureen ; Marsolais, Pierre ; Shemie, Sam ; Zaabat, Sanabelle ; Dhanani, Sonny ; Kitto, Simon C ; Chassé, Michaël ; Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group</creatorcontrib><description>IntroductionIn Canada, deceased organ donation provides over 80% of transplanted organs. At the time of death, families, friends or others assume responsibility as substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to consent to organ donation. Despite their central role in this process, little is known about what barriers, enablers and beliefs influence decision-making among SDMs. This study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of SDMs involved in making decisions around the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, end-of-life care and deceased organ donation.Methods and analysisSDMs of 60 patients admitted to intensive care units will be enrolled for this study. Ten hospitals across five provinces in Canada in a prospective multicentre qualitative cohort study. We will conduct semistructured telephone interviews in English or French with SDMs between 6 and 8 weeks after the patient’s death. Our sampling frame will stratify SDMs into three groups: SDMs who were not approached for organ donation; SDMs who were approached and consented to donate and SDMs who were approached but did not consent to donate. We will use two complementary theoretical frameworks—the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework— to inform our interview guide. Interview data will be analysed using deductive directed content analysis and inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Research Ethics Board. The findings from this study will help identify key factors affecting substitute decision-making in deceased organ donation, reasons for non-consent and barriers to achieve congruency between SDM and patient wishes. Ultimately, these data will contribute to the development and evaluation of tools and training for healthcare providers to support SDMs in making decisions about organ donation.Trial registration number NCT03850847.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034594</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31874899</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Attitude ; Blood &amp; organ donations ; Cadaver ; Clinical decision making ; Cohort Studies ; Collaboration ; Consent ; Content analysis ; Critical care ; Decision Making ; Emotions ; Health Services Research ; Humans ; Illnesses ; intensive and critical care ; Intensive care ; Interviews ; Multicenter Studies as Topic ; Palliative care ; Patients ; Qualitative Research ; quality in health care ; Research Design ; Research methodology ; Tissue and Organ Procurement ; Transplants &amp; implants</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2019-12, Vol.9 (12), p.e034594-e034594</ispartof><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><rights>2019 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-162e40af46370985b0404bfd63492406452b0a1422614d22b2147b64bc0566e23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-162e40af46370985b0404bfd63492406452b0a1422614d22b2147b64bc0566e23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6302-1496 ; 0000-0001-5675-8791</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2347747385/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2347747385?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>112,113,230,314,727,780,784,885,3194,25753,27549,27550,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,55341,55350,75126,77594,77595,77596,77597,77601,77632,77660,77686</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31874899$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Crawshaw, Jacob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Presseau, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Allen, Zack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jordison, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>English, Shane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fergusson, Dean A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lauzier, Francois</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turgeon, Alexis F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarti, Aimee J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Claudio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Aragon, Frédérick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Alvin Ho-ting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knoll, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brehaut, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burns, Karen E A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortin, Marie-Chantal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiss, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meade, Maureen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsolais, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shemie, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaabat, Sanabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhanani, Sonny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kitto, Simon C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chassé, Michaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group</creatorcontrib><title>Exploring the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision-makers involved in decisions about deceased organ donation: a qualitative study protocol</title><title>BMJ open</title><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><description>IntroductionIn Canada, deceased organ donation provides over 80% of transplanted organs. At the time of death, families, friends or others assume responsibility as substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to consent to organ donation. Despite their central role in this process, little is known about what barriers, enablers and beliefs influence decision-making among SDMs. This study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of SDMs involved in making decisions around the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, end-of-life care and deceased organ donation.Methods and analysisSDMs of 60 patients admitted to intensive care units will be enrolled for this study. Ten hospitals across five provinces in Canada in a prospective multicentre qualitative cohort study. We will conduct semistructured telephone interviews in English or French with SDMs between 6 and 8 weeks after the patient’s death. Our sampling frame will stratify SDMs into three groups: SDMs who were not approached for organ donation; SDMs who were approached and consented to donate and SDMs who were approached but did not consent to donate. We will use two complementary theoretical frameworks—the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework— to inform our interview guide. Interview data will be analysed using deductive directed content analysis and inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Research Ethics Board. The findings from this study will help identify key factors affecting substitute decision-making in deceased organ donation, reasons for non-consent and barriers to achieve congruency between SDM and patient wishes. Ultimately, these data will contribute to the development and evaluation of tools and training for healthcare providers to support SDMs in making decisions about organ donation.Trial registration number NCT03850847.</description><subject>Attitude</subject><subject>Blood &amp; organ donations</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Health Services Research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>intensive and critical care</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Multicenter Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Palliative care</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>quality in health care</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Tissue and Organ Procurement</subject><subject>Transplants &amp; implants</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks1u1DAUhSMEolXpEyChSGzYpPXPtZOwQEJVgUqV2MDaspObqYeMndrOqH2VPi0eMgwtC0Q2sX2-c3wTnaJ4TckZpVyem83aT-gqRmhbEQ6ihWfFMSMAlSRCPH-0PipOY1yT_GRKCPayOOK0qaFp2-Pi4fJuGn2wblWmGyzxbsJg0XUYS-36Mu_ihF2y23zghzLOJiab5oRlj52N1rtqo39kqrRu68ct9nlx0HKI8XPa7VHHrPmw0ln2Tqcsvy91eTvr0Sa9u6GMae7vyyn45Ds_vipeDHqMeLp_nxTfP11-u_hSXX_9fHXx8boyom5SRSVDIHoAyWvSNsIQIGCGXnJoGRAJghmiKTAmKfSMGUahNhJMR4SUyPhJcbXk9l6v1RTsRod75bVVvw7yyEqHZLsRVQOdMAwJBWxBaNIMjDKheSdlzfmAOevDkjXNZoN9hy4FPT4Jfao4e6NWfqtqQhoAmgPe7QOCv50xJrWxscNx1A79HBXjnIi2aesd-vYvdO3n4PKvyhTUNdS8EZniC9UFH2PA4TAMJWpXJbWvktpVSS1Vyq43j7_j4PldnAycLUB2_2fi-R_DYdB_OX4C9MnmmA</recordid><startdate>20191223</startdate><enddate>20191223</enddate><creator>Crawshaw, Jacob</creator><creator>Presseau, Justin</creator><creator>van Allen, Zack</creator><creator>Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia</creator><creator>Jordison, Kim</creator><creator>English, Shane</creator><creator>Fergusson, Dean A</creator><creator>Lauzier, Francois</creator><creator>Turgeon, Alexis F</creator><creator>Sarti, Aimee J</creator><creator>Martin, Claudio</creator><creator>D'Aragon, Frédérick</creator><creator>Li, Alvin Ho-ting</creator><creator>Knoll, Greg</creator><creator>Ball, Ian</creator><creator>Brehaut, Jamie</creator><creator>Burns, Karen E A</creator><creator>Fortin, Marie-Chantal</creator><creator>Weiss, Matthew</creator><creator>Meade, Maureen</creator><creator>Marsolais, Pierre</creator><creator>Shemie, Sam</creator><creator>Zaabat, Sanabelle</creator><creator>Dhanani, Sonny</creator><creator>Kitto, Simon C</creator><creator>Chassé, Michaël</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6302-1496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5675-8791</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191223</creationdate><title>Exploring the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision-makers involved in decisions about deceased organ donation: a qualitative study protocol</title><author>Crawshaw, Jacob ; Presseau, Justin ; van Allen, Zack ; Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia ; Jordison, Kim ; English, Shane ; Fergusson, Dean A ; Lauzier, Francois ; Turgeon, Alexis F ; Sarti, Aimee J ; Martin, Claudio ; D'Aragon, Frédérick ; Li, Alvin Ho-ting ; Knoll, Greg ; Ball, Ian ; Brehaut, Jamie ; Burns, Karen E A ; Fortin, Marie-Chantal ; Weiss, Matthew ; Meade, Maureen ; Marsolais, Pierre ; Shemie, Sam ; Zaabat, Sanabelle ; Dhanani, Sonny ; Kitto, Simon C ; Chassé, Michaël</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-162e40af46370985b0404bfd63492406452b0a1422614d22b2147b64bc0566e23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Attitude</topic><topic>Blood &amp; organ donations</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Health Services Research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>intensive and critical care</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Multicenter Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Palliative care</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>quality in health care</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Tissue and Organ Procurement</topic><topic>Transplants &amp; implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Crawshaw, Jacob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Presseau, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Allen, Zack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jordison, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>English, Shane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fergusson, Dean A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lauzier, Francois</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turgeon, Alexis F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarti, Aimee J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Claudio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Aragon, Frédérick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Alvin Ho-ting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knoll, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brehaut, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burns, Karen E A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortin, Marie-Chantal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiss, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meade, Maureen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsolais, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shemie, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaabat, Sanabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhanani, Sonny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kitto, Simon C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chassé, Michaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group</creatorcontrib><collection>British Medical Journal Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Crawshaw, Jacob</au><au>Presseau, Justin</au><au>van Allen, Zack</au><au>Pinheiro Carvalho, Livia</au><au>Jordison, Kim</au><au>English, Shane</au><au>Fergusson, Dean A</au><au>Lauzier, Francois</au><au>Turgeon, Alexis F</au><au>Sarti, Aimee J</au><au>Martin, Claudio</au><au>D'Aragon, Frédérick</au><au>Li, Alvin Ho-ting</au><au>Knoll, Greg</au><au>Ball, Ian</au><au>Brehaut, Jamie</au><au>Burns, Karen E A</au><au>Fortin, Marie-Chantal</au><au>Weiss, Matthew</au><au>Meade, Maureen</au><au>Marsolais, Pierre</au><au>Shemie, Sam</au><au>Zaabat, Sanabelle</au><au>Dhanani, Sonny</au><au>Kitto, Simon C</au><au>Chassé, Michaël</au><aucorp>Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Exploring the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision-makers involved in decisions about deceased organ donation: a qualitative study protocol</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><stitle>BMJ Open</stitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><date>2019-12-23</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e034594</spage><epage>e034594</epage><pages>e034594-e034594</pages><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>IntroductionIn Canada, deceased organ donation provides over 80% of transplanted organs. At the time of death, families, friends or others assume responsibility as substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to consent to organ donation. Despite their central role in this process, little is known about what barriers, enablers and beliefs influence decision-making among SDMs. This study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of SDMs involved in making decisions around the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, end-of-life care and deceased organ donation.Methods and analysisSDMs of 60 patients admitted to intensive care units will be enrolled for this study. Ten hospitals across five provinces in Canada in a prospective multicentre qualitative cohort study. We will conduct semistructured telephone interviews in English or French with SDMs between 6 and 8 weeks after the patient’s death. Our sampling frame will stratify SDMs into three groups: SDMs who were not approached for organ donation; SDMs who were approached and consented to donate and SDMs who were approached but did not consent to donate. We will use two complementary theoretical frameworks—the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework— to inform our interview guide. Interview data will be analysed using deductive directed content analysis and inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Research Ethics Board. The findings from this study will help identify key factors affecting substitute decision-making in deceased organ donation, reasons for non-consent and barriers to achieve congruency between SDM and patient wishes. Ultimately, these data will contribute to the development and evaluation of tools and training for healthcare providers to support SDMs in making decisions about organ donation.Trial registration number NCT03850847.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>31874899</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034594</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6302-1496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5675-8791</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2044-6055
ispartof BMJ open, 2019-12, Vol.9 (12), p.e034594-e034594
issn 2044-6055
2044-6055
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_84c5b2e014e945a08f2125a3c66733fe
source Publicly Available Content (ProQuest); BMJ Journals; PubMed Central; British Medical Journal Open Access Journals
subjects Attitude
Blood & organ donations
Cadaver
Clinical decision making
Cohort Studies
Collaboration
Consent
Content analysis
Critical care
Decision Making
Emotions
Health Services Research
Humans
Illnesses
intensive and critical care
Intensive care
Interviews
Multicenter Studies as Topic
Palliative care
Patients
Qualitative Research
quality in health care
Research Design
Research methodology
Tissue and Organ Procurement
Transplants & implants
title Exploring the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision-makers involved in decisions about deceased organ donation: a qualitative study protocol
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T00%3A15%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Exploring%20the%20experiences%20and%20perspectives%20of%20substitute%20decision-makers%20involved%20in%20decisions%20about%20deceased%20organ%20donation:%20a%20qualitative%20study%20protocol&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Crawshaw,%20Jacob&rft.aucorp=Canadian%20Donation%20and%20Transplantation%20Research%20Program%20and%20the%20Canadian%20Critical%20Care%20Trials%20Group&rft.date=2019-12-23&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e034594&rft.epage=e034594&rft.pages=e034594-e034594&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034594&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2330598971%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-162e40af46370985b0404bfd63492406452b0a1422614d22b2147b64bc0566e23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2347747385&rft_id=info:pmid/31874899&rfr_iscdi=true