Difference between revisions of "Denvir2009"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Paul Denvir; Anita Pomerantz; |Title=A qualitative analysis of a significant barrier to organ and tissue donation: Receiving less-than-...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 08:29, 24 June 2015

Denvir2009
BibType ARTICLE
Key Denvir2009
Author(s) Paul Denvir, Anita Pomerantz
Title A qualitative analysis of a significant barrier to organ and tissue donation: Receiving less-than-optimal medical care
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Medical EMCA, Organ Donation, Medical Care
Publisher
Year 2009
Language
City
Month
Journal Health Communication
Volume 24
Number 7
Pages 597-607
URL Link
DOI 10.1080/10410230903242200
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

A key reason for the shortage of transplantable organs and tissue in the United States is the degree of resistance among the public to donating organs and tissue after death. In this article, we explore a single barrier to donation: the concern that medical personnel might provide “less-than-optimal” care to intended donors. Using 2 qualitative methodologies—analysis of family discussions about donation and analysis of in-depth interviews about donation—we explore what participants' discourse reveals about the variations and texture of this concern. The analysis revealed 4 aspects of this concern: (a) Participants expressed different versions of less-than-optimal care, each reflecting different assumptions about how medical personnel may approach the treatment of potential donors. (b) Participants expressed their concerns by describing hypothetical scenarios of medical treatment. These scenarios were designed to play up the plausibility of receiving less-than-optimal care and situated the speaker as the victim in the scenario. (c) Participants' uncertainty about the quality of medical treatment was sufficient grounds for not donating. (d) Participants expressed their concerns about medical treatment in terms of the perceived corruptibility of sociocultural institutions, including medical institutions. This analysis also revealed the lines of reasoning through which participants overcame a concern about receiving less-than-optimal-care. In our view, the most promising line of reasoning expressed by participants was to trust the legal and procedural protections built into the recovery process.

Notes