Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes when Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Group and a Randomized Survey

Cory R Schaffhausen, Marilyn J Bruin, Sauman Chu, Andrew Wey, Warren T McKinney, Jon Synder, Jack R. Lake, Arthur J Matas, Bertram Kasiske, Ajay K Israni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results.

METHODS:
First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making.

RESULTS:
One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95).

CONCLUSIONS:
The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-210
JournalTransplantation
Volume104
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2020

Fingerprint

Focus Groups
Transplants
Decision Making
Data Display
Qualitative Research
Internet
Uncertainty
Surveys and Questionnaires
Confidence Intervals
Kidney
Lung
Survival
Mortality
Liver

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Cite this

Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes when Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Group and a Randomized Survey. / Schaffhausen, Cory R; Bruin, Marilyn J; Chu, Sauman; Wey, Andrew; McKinney, Warren T; Synder, Jon; Lake, Jack R.; Matas, Arthur J; Kasiske, Bertram; Israni, Ajay K.

In: Transplantation, Vol. 104, No. 1, 01.2020, p. 201-210.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schaffhausen, Cory R ; Bruin, Marilyn J ; Chu, Sauman ; Wey, Andrew ; McKinney, Warren T ; Synder, Jon ; Lake, Jack R. ; Matas, Arthur J ; Kasiske, Bertram ; Israni, Ajay K. / Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes when Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Group and a Randomized Survey. In: Transplantation. 2020 ; Vol. 104, No. 1. pp. 201-210.
@article{7c87a18a42614d1b99653b56f4925c39,
title = "Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes when Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Group and a Randomized Survey",
abstract = "BACKGROUND:In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results.METHODS:First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making.RESULTS:One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.161.501.95).CONCLUSIONS:The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.",
author = "Schaffhausen, {Cory R} and Bruin, {Marilyn J} and Sauman Chu and Andrew Wey and McKinney, {Warren T} and Jon Synder and Lake, {Jack R.} and Matas, {Arthur J} and Bertram Kasiske and Israni, {Ajay K}",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1097/TP.0000000000002809",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "104",
pages = "201--210",
journal = "Transplantation",
issn = "0041-1337",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes when Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Group and a Randomized Survey

AU - Schaffhausen, Cory R

AU - Bruin, Marilyn J

AU - Chu, Sauman

AU - Wey, Andrew

AU - McKinney, Warren T

AU - Synder, Jon

AU - Lake, Jack R.

AU - Matas, Arthur J

AU - Kasiske, Bertram

AU - Israni, Ajay K

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - BACKGROUND:In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results.METHODS:First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making.RESULTS:One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95).CONCLUSIONS:The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.

AB - BACKGROUND:In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results.METHODS:First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making.RESULTS:One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95).CONCLUSIONS:The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.

U2 - 10.1097/TP.0000000000002809

DO - 10.1097/TP.0000000000002809

M3 - Article

C2 - 31283676

VL - 104

SP - 201

EP - 210

JO - Transplantation

JF - Transplantation

SN - 0041-1337

IS - 1

ER -