Search

Tim Bartling,1,2 Carina Oedingen,1,2 Harald Schrem,2,3 Thomas Kohlmann,4 Christian Krauth1,2 1Hannover Medical School, Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover, Germany; 2Center for Health Economics Research Hannover, Hannover, Germany; 3General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria; 4Department of Methods of Community Medicine, Institute for Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, GermanyCorrespondence: Tim Bartling, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover / Hannover Medical School, Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Carl-Neuberg-Str, 1, Hannover, Lower Saxony, 30625, Germany, Tel +49 511 532 9462, Fax +49 511 532 5376, Email bartling.tim@mh-hannover.dePurpose: Organ transplantation systems benefit from guidelines that are harmonious with the preferences of the people involved. Discrete choice experiments are useful tools for eliciting preferences.Patients and Methods: This study evaluated the preferences of patients and their relatives (n=285) to identify their priorities in organ allocation using a discrete choice experiment. In eight hypothetical allocation decisions, the participants were asked to select the candidate they considered the most suitable The candidates differed in years of life gained after transplantation, quality of life after transplantation, waiting time until transplantation, age, compliance and social support.Results: The most important aspects for setting priority in organ allocation were lack of compliance (β= − 2.5, p< 0.001) and good quality of life after transplantation (β = +1.4, p< 0.001). The lack of social support (ß = − 0.8, p< 0.05) and the more years of life gained after transplantation (β = +0.5, p< 0.001) had less but still a significant amount of influence on this decision, while the waiting list was not considered significantly important (β = 0.1, p> 0.05). The comparison of the di

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic steato-hepatitis (NASH) is the inflammatory, progressive form of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). A delayed diagnose interval is typical for the majority of the patients because of the asymptomatic natural course. However, serious sequelae may develop such as cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. NASH is also associated with an increased risk of metabolic diseases. Obesity developed due to a lack of exercise or a disadvantageous diet often leads to NAFLD or NASH, thereby interventions including enhanced physical activity and calorie reduction form the actual gold standard of treatment. To date, patients rarely use these. The project aims to model lifestyle interventions based on the preferences of the NASH patients. METHODS: Based on a systematic review and focus group discussions, two discrete choice experiments (DCE) will be designed, one on aspects influencing successful uptake of lifestyle interventions and one to analyses parameters contributing to long-term participation. An online survey will be used to elicit patient's preferences on program design and on motivational aspects in a cross-sectional design. The recruitment will take place in nine certified specialist practices and hospital outpatient clinics aiming to reach a sample size of n = 500 which is also required for the DCE design. DISCUSSION: The results will provide an overview of the NASH patient's preferences regarding the successful uptake and long-term implementation of lifestyle interventions. Recommendations for optimized lifestyle change programs will be derived and an intervention manual will be developed to facilitate target group-specific inclusion in programs in practice.

Tim Bartling,1,2 Carina Oedingen,1,2 Thomas Kohlmann,3 Harald Schrem,2,4,5 Christian Krauth1,2 1Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; 2Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany; 3Department for Methods of Community Medicine, Institute for Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany; 4Transplant Center Graz, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria; 5General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, AustriaCorrespondence: Tim Bartling, Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany, Tel +49 511 532 9462, Fax +49 511 532 5376, Email bartling.tim@mh-hannover.dePurpose: The gap between the supply and demand for deceased donor organs is increasing worldwide, while patients on waiting lists for organ transplantation die. This situation requires ethical donor organ allocation rules. The patients’ perspective on donor organ allocation rules offers a highly relevant and unique perspective that may differ from the perspectives of physicians and the general public.Patients and Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with the regional group coordinators of the federal self-help organization for organ transplanted patients and their relatives in Germany in early 2021. Twelve interviews were conducted with patients and relatives of transplantation patients who received transplants for the affected organs including the lungs, heart, kidney, and liver. Transcripts were analyzed using the deductive framework method which was based on an earlier study. All criteria were reported following the COREQ statement.Results: Participants emphasized aspects of “medical urgency” and “effectiveness/benefit” of transplantation and associated trade-offs as well as the recipient’s responsibility for organ failure (“own