↓ Skip to main content

An Integrated Psychosocial Model of Relatives' Decision About Deceased Organ Donation (IMROD): Joining Pieces of the Puzzle

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Integrated Psychosocial Model of Relatives' Decision About Deceased Organ Donation (IMROD): Joining Pieces of the Puzzle
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00408
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge S. López, Maria Soria-Oliver, Begoña Aramayona, Rubén García-Sánchez, José M. Martínez, María J. Martín

Abstract

Organ transplantation remains currently limited because the demand for organs far exceeds the supply. Though organ procurement is a complex process involving social, organizational, and clinical factors, one of the most relevant limitations of organ availability is family refusal to donate organs of a deceased relative. In the past decades, a remarkable corpus of evidence about the factors conditioning relatives' consent has been generated. However, research in the field has been carried out mainly by means of merely empirical approaches, and only partial attempts have been made to integrate the existing empirical evidence within conceptual and theoretically based frameworks. Accordingly, this work articulates the proposal of an Integrated Psychosocial Model of Relatives' Organ Donation (IMROD) which offers a systematic view of the factors and psychosocial processes involved in family decision and their interrelations. Relatives' experience is conceptualized as a decision process about the possibility of vicariously performing an altruistic behavior that takes place under one of the most stressful experiences of one's lifetime and in the context of interaction with different healthcare professionals. Drawing on this, in the proposed model, the influence of the implied factors and their interrelations/interactions are structured and interpreted according to their theoretically based relation with processes like rational/heuristic decision-making, uncertainty, stress, bereavement, emotional reactions, sense of reciprocity, sense of freedom to decide, and attitudes/intentions toward one's own and the deceased's organ donation. Our model also develops a processual perspective and suggests different decisional scenarios that may be reached as a result of the combinations of the considered factors. Each of these scenarios may imply different balances between factors that enhance or hinder donation, such as different levels of uncertainty and potential decisional conflict. Throughout our work, current controversial or inconsistent results are discussed and interpreted on the basis of the relationships that are posited in the proposed model. Finally, we suggest that the structure of the relationships and interactions contained in our model can be used by future research to guide the formulation of hypotheses and the interpretation of results. In this sense, specific guidelines and research questions are also proposed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Psychology 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 26 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2021.
All research outputs
#14,969,772
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,281
of 30,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,772
of 329,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#417
of 580 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 580 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.