Cardiac Transplant Disorder
Conditions
Keywords
Heart Transplant, Transplant Survival, Applied Ethics, Medical Students, Human Behavior, Decision Psychology
Brief summary
Publicly available outcome assessments for transplant programs do not make salient that some programs tend to reject many of the hearts they are offered, whereas other programs accept a broader range of donor offers. The investigators use empirical studies to test whether transplant center performance data (i.e. transplant and waitlist outcome statistics) that reflect center donor acceptance rates influence laypersons to evaluate centers with high organ decline rates less favorably than centers with low organ decline rates. 125 medical student participants will be recruited from University of Pittsburgh Medical School and randomized to one of two different information presentation conditions. Participants will be given an introduction to the donor organ match process, then asked to view the table of transplant outcomes corresponding to the condition they were randomized to. Each participant is asked to choose the hospital that they would consider to be "higher performing" between two hospitals: one hospital with a non-selective, "accepting" strategy (takes all donor heart offers), and one hospital with a more selective, "cherrypicking" strategy (tends to reject donor offers that are less than "excellent" quality).
Detailed description
Publicly available outcome assessments for transplant programs do not make salient that some programs tend to reject many of the hearts they are offered, whereas other programs accept a broader range of donor offers. The investigators use empirical studies to test whether transplant center performance data (i.e. transplant and waitlist outcome statistics) that reflect center donor acceptance rates influence laypersons to evaluate centers with high organ decline rates less favorably than centers with low organ decline rates. 125 medical student participants will be recruited from University of Pittsburgh Medical School and randomized to one of two different information presentation conditions: Condition 1 ("baseline" condition): view only combined transplant survival (e.g. transplant survival rate not stratified by number and quality of donor hearts accepted at each center) Condition 2: view only stratified transplant survival (e.g. transplant survival rate stratified into patients who received excellent donor organs and patients who received less than optimal donor organs) Participants will be given an introduction to the donor organ match process, then asked to view the table of transplant outcomes corresponding to the condition they were randomized to.Each participant is asked to choose the hospital that they would consider to be "higher performing" between two hospitals: one hospital with a non-selective, "accepting" strategy (takes all donor heart offers), and one hospital with a more selective, "cherrypicking" strategy (tends to reject donor offers that are less than "excellent" quality). In order to identify the decision process that underlies this choice pattern, the investigators will examine a putative mediator. Specifically, participants will be asked to rate the extent to which they considered patients' chances of getting an excellent heart, avoiding a less-than-optimal heart, and getting any type of heart when making their choice between the two hospitals.
Interventions
The transplant survival rate in the table of outcome statistics is stratified into two groups: (i) patients who received excellent donor organs and (ii) patients who received less than optimal donor organs. Stratified transplant survival is computed from survival rates of transplant patients who received each quality category of organ. excellent transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with excellent organ\]/\[number of patients for whom excellent organ was accepted for transplant\] marginal transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with marginal organ\]/\[number of patients for whom marginal organ was accepted for transplant\]
Sponsors
Carnegie Mellon University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Participants will be asked to participate if they confirm the following inclusion criteria in the consent form. 1. 18 years of age or older 2. must read and understand the information in the consent form 3. must want to participate in the research and continue with the survey 4. must live in United States 5. 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year medical student at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Exclusion criteria
1\. participants who do not meet primary criterion of being a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year medical student at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine \-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Hospital Choice | 1 day | The outcome variable will be a measure of binary choice between two hospitals: one with a selective donor-heart acceptance strategy and one with a non-selective donor heart acceptance strategy. Participants will respond to the question "Which Hospital is a better choice for patients? Please click on one of the two tables below to indicate which hospital is the better choice." Participants will choose been two outcome tables featuring the selective and non-selective hospital (counterbalanced, such that each of the two choices is equally likely to be presented at top of the choice scenario in each condition). The number of participants that choose each hospital will be the measured outcome variable used in analyses. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mediator of Hospital Choice | 1 day | Participants answered the question "There are many reasons why one transplant hospital might outperform another. Which reasons were most important in your decision? Please move the slider to indicate how much you considered each of the reasons below (0=reason was not important, 100=reason was extremely important). Patients were more likely to receive any type of donor heart at the hospital I picked." The reported data are the mean responses on this 0-100 scale. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORAlison E Butler, BS
Carnegie Mellon University
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Recruited via email through medical school listserv.
Pre-assignment details
Included if the participant identified as current medical student and was over 18.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Condition 1: Combined Only Participants randomized to baseline (control) arm Condition 1 will view only combined transplant survival outcome information (e.g. transplant survival rate not stratified by number and quality of donor hearts accepted at each center) when making a choice between the two hospitals. | 56 |
| Condition 3: Stratified Only Participants randomized to Condition 3 will view only stratified transplant survival outcome information when making a choice between the two hospitals.
Stratified Transplant Survival: The transplant survival rate in the table of outcome statistics is stratified into two groups: (i) patients who received excellent donor organs and (ii) patients who received less than optimal donor organs.
Stratified transplant survival is computed from survival rates of transplant patients who received each quality category of organ.
excellent transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with excellent organ\]/\[number of patients for whom excellent organ was accepted for transplant\] marginal transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with marginal organ\]/\[number of patients for whom marginal organ was accepted for transplant\] | 49 |
| Total | 105 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Condition 1: Combined Only | Condition 3: Stratified Only | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 56 Participants | 49 Participants | 105 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 14 Participants | 8 Participants | 22 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 2 Participants | 3 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 5 Participants | 2 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 33 Participants | 36 Participants | 69 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 56 participants | 49 participants | 105 participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 37 Participants | 30 Participants | 67 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Male | 19 Participants | 17 Participants | 36 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Transgender | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Unknown | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 56 | 0 / 49 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 56 | 0 / 49 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 56 | 0 / 49 |
Outcome results
Primary
Hospital Choice
The outcome variable will be a measure of binary choice between two hospitals: one with a selective donor-heart acceptance strategy and one with a non-selective donor heart acceptance strategy. Participants will respond to the question Which Hospital is a better choice for patients? Please click on one of the two tables below to indicate which hospital is the better choice. Participants will choose been two outcome tables featuring the selective and non-selective hospital (counterbalanced, such that each of the two choices is equally likely to be presented at top of the choice scenario in each condition). The number of participants that choose each hospital will be the measured outcome variable used in analyses.
Time frame: 1 day
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Condition 1: Combined Only | Hospital Choice | Number choosing non-selective center | 33 Participants |
| Condition 1: Combined Only | Hospital Choice | Number choosing selective center | 23 Participants |
| Condition 3: Stratified Only | Hospital Choice | Number choosing non-selective center | 47 Participants |
| Condition 3: Stratified Only | Hospital Choice | Number choosing selective center | 2 Participants |