Comparing preferences of physicians and patients regarding the allocation of donor organs: A systematic review

In order to improve the demand-supply-mismatch in transplantation medicine, policy makers have to think about adapting existing legal frameworks for donor organ allocation. This study aims to systematically review preferences of physicians as well as patients in the field of transplantation medicine. PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO and PsycINFO were searched from January 2000 to December 2018 without language restrictions. Fourteen publications were identified, six aiming at physicians, seven focusing on patients and one on both groups. The criteria used in these studies to elicit preferences can be grouped into six different main categories, all deriving from the general principle of equality: “Effectiveness/Benefit”, “Medical urgency”, “Own fault”, “Social value”, “Medical background” and “Socio-demographic status”. Whilst patients on the one hand show a high demand for equal access, outcome maximization and punishment for damaging behaviors, they would still allocate organs to people with very low survival chances. Physicians decide against equal access to transplantation in cases where clinical evidence is weighed more heavily, e.g. in the cases of ethnicity and sex. Also, they seem more informed regarding the involvement of medical factors and give less importance to those with uncertain effects on transplantation outcome, such as tissue or blood group match. It is important to continuously monitor preferences of all involved stakeholders in order to achieve fair and accessible transplantation systems. •A large mismatch in supply and demand of donor organs results in a distributive justice dilemma, forcing value judgements.•Patients prefer allocating by equal access, maximizing outcome and punishing damaging behaviors.•Physicians often decide against equal access, but in favor of viewing the matter as a systemic perspective.