A Rapid Scoping Review of the Dual Advocacy Model for Donation Conversations

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing family authorization for donation is critical to address the shortage of organs for transplantation, yet there is no standardized method for leading conversations with families about donation. Objective: The aim of this rapid scoping review is to identify research assessing the components of dual advocacy, a model to discuss organ donation with grieving families. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and grey literature were searched for studies published from 2012 to the present. Data representing the various dual advocacy components that were empirically tested were extracted. Outcomes of interest were authorization for organ donation or family satisfaction with the donation conversation. Results: Twenty-two articles were identified that tested at least one component of dual advocacy. The most commonly tested component was effective communication about donation (N = 9), including explaining brain death and the donation process. The primary outcome for the majority of studies was donation authorization or conversion rates. Studies that tested all components of dual advocacy (N = 9) had overall positive results while studies that tested a single component had mixed results. Discussion: Although family authorization to donation is critical to addressing the national organ shortage, there has yet to be a standardized method for leading families in the organ donation conversation. Despite the need for organ transplantation in the United States and worldwide, few large-scale studies have rigorously tested the most effective ways to engage families of donor-eligible patients about the organ donation opportunity. There is an urgent need for further research to establish a standard of evidence-based practice.