Impact of physical disability on transplant candidacy: A multi-institutional survey of transplant professionals.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jessica Marengo, Joel Michael Reynolds, Liz Bowen, Christoph Nabzdyk, Mariah Tanious
{"title":"Impact of physical disability on transplant candidacy: A multi-institutional survey of transplant professionals.","authors":"Jessica Marengo, Joel Michael Reynolds, Liz Bowen, Christoph Nabzdyk, Mariah Tanious","doi":"10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the solid organ transplant evaluation process is designed to function equitably, discriminatory practices remain, resulting in disparities in access for persons with disabilities. Physical function and frailty status are often-cited factors in establishing transplant, despite limited consensus on their assessment and impact.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to describe how transplant healthcare professionals conceptualize the relationship between physical disability and transplant candidacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sample of multidisciplinary transplant was solicited to respond to an electronic survey between February and March 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 126 professionals contacted, 43 participants responded, yielding a response rate of 34 %. The majority of participants (88 %) held contradictory views of physical disability as it relates to transplant candidacy (p = 0.049). Men were more likely to endorse awareness of bias when evaluating transplant candidates (p = 0.008). Professional discipline was significantly associated with perception of transplant process fairness, impact of bias, and interpretation of quality of life. Iterative thematic analysis revealed a propensity to conflate frailty with physical disability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multidisciplinary transplant professionals rarely endorsed overtly ableist sentiments. However, responses highlighted inconsistent, unclear, and at times contradictory conceptions of physical function and physical disability, which may contribute to disparate access to solid organ transplant for individuals with physical disability.</p>","PeriodicalId":49300,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"101818"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101818","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While the solid organ transplant evaluation process is designed to function equitably, discriminatory practices remain, resulting in disparities in access for persons with disabilities. Physical function and frailty status are often-cited factors in establishing transplant, despite limited consensus on their assessment and impact.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe how transplant healthcare professionals conceptualize the relationship between physical disability and transplant candidacy.

Methods: A convenience sample of multidisciplinary transplant was solicited to respond to an electronic survey between February and March 2024.

Results: Of the 126 professionals contacted, 43 participants responded, yielding a response rate of 34 %. The majority of participants (88 %) held contradictory views of physical disability as it relates to transplant candidacy (p = 0.049). Men were more likely to endorse awareness of bias when evaluating transplant candidates (p = 0.008). Professional discipline was significantly associated with perception of transplant process fairness, impact of bias, and interpretation of quality of life. Iterative thematic analysis revealed a propensity to conflate frailty with physical disability.

Conclusions: Multidisciplinary transplant professionals rarely endorsed overtly ableist sentiments. However, responses highlighted inconsistent, unclear, and at times contradictory conceptions of physical function and physical disability, which may contribute to disparate access to solid organ transplant for individuals with physical disability.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Disability and Health Journal
Disability and Health Journal HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
134
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Disability and Health Journal is a scientific, scholarly, and multidisciplinary journal for reporting original contributions that advance knowledge in disability and health. Topics may be related to global health, quality of life, and specific health conditions as they relate to disability. Such contributions include: • Reports of empirical research on the characteristics of persons with disabilities, environment, health outcomes, and determinants of health • Reports of empirical research on the Systematic or other evidence-based reviews and tightly conceived theoretical interpretations of research literature • Reports of empirical research on the Evaluative research on new interventions, technologies, and programs • Reports of empirical research on the Reports on issues or policies affecting the health and/or quality of life for persons with disabilities, using a scientific base.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信