Overcoming barriers and enhancing strategies in organ transplantation systems: a systematic review

1 Introduction

Organ transplantation is a fundamental part of modern medicine, often the last and most effective treatment for end-stage organ failure. Studies show that successful transplants not only save lives but improve the overall quality of life significantly in patients suffering with chronic diseases (1, 2). However, a chronic worldwide problem still exists that there is shortage of organs in quantity and the need to restore those tissues exceeds supply.

The gap between patients waiting for transplants and available donors continues to widen, leading to high mortality rates for those waiting for a suitable organ (1, 3). Even though there are better surgical techniques and organ allocation rules, the shortage remains the biggest limitation in transplantation (4). Less than less than 10% of the worldwide need for transplantation is actually being met according to current global data (5). This problem is even more acute in low- and middle-income countries, where limited resources, weaker infrastructure and policy limitations further make transplantation more difficult (5–7).

In addition to shortage itself, several systemic “missed opportunities” also contribute to this shortage including delays in identifying potential donors, logistical hurdles in organ retrieval and transport and poor coordination between hospitals (3). Ethical concerns and differences consent processes also makes it complex (8).

Interestingly, the shortage isn't always due to a lack of public support, there are several system-level issues that worsen the situation as there is documented “knowledge-action gap” where people are willing to donate organs, but they never take step to actually register (3). A major reason of this is lack of awareness. Many individuals including university students and the general public do not completely understand the concepts like brain death or who can be a potential donor (2). These informational gaps are widespread and has also been reported in other studies (9, 10).

Beyond this, cultural, religious, and psychological factors also influence the decisions about organ donation. Hesitancy to donate can result due to misconceptions, fear and misinformation regarding the donation process (11). Commonly reported barriers include concerns about bodily integrity and religious interpretations (12–15). In addition, psychological barrier persists due to lack of trust in the health care system particularly the fear of premature declaration of death (15, 16).

Evidence has proved that well-structured educational initiatives and better communication strategies can help increase donation rates (17–19). Also, policy changes that aim to enhance the transparency and simplifying the donation process for families are very crucial (4, 20). It is equally important to consolidate our understanding of them because these barriers or challenges are so complex and interconnected.

This review aims to consolidate the existing literature on the various elements that can play a role in affecting organ transplantation. It focuses on knowledge gaps, socio-cultural factors and addressing systemic constraints (3, 11) along with evaluating the effectiveness of existing interventional strategies in the health care system (4). The ultimate goal is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations to help bridge the “knowledge–action gap” and improve the outcomes for organ transplantation.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Search strategy and data sources

A methodical search was conducted on four primary electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. This search targeted peer-reviewed publications from the last 10 years to ensure that the results are clinically relevant in nature. The search strategy included Boolean operators (AND/OR) with specific keywords such as “organ donation,” “organ transplantation,” “transplantation barriers,” “organ registration,” “brain death knowledge,” and “donation strategies.”

2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were selected based on established inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure relevance and methodological rigor. The inclusion criteria focused on research studies including randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and mixed-methods studies specifically focused on barriers, attitudes, perceptions, or strategies for organ donation and transplantation. Systematic reviews, editorials, commentaries, and conference abstracts; studies which were not associated with organ donation or transplantation frameworks, studies which were lacking adequate data on barriers or strategies, not published in English language; and studies where full texts could not be accessed were excluded.

2.3 Data extraction and quality assessment

A total of 1,139 records were identified initially, after which 139 duplicates were removed. The remaining 1,000 studies were then screened by two independent reviewers using Rayyan software, resulting in selection of 129 abstracts for additional review. Of these, 59 articles were evaluated for full-text eligibility, and finally 33 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Data extraction was completed using a standard form that included details such as author, year, geographic setting, study design, sample size, and the main findings. To be ensured about the reliability of the evidence, the quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Most studies were evaluated using the JBI checklist for cross-sectional studies, while interventional studies were assessed using the checklist for randomized controlled trials (see Table 1). Each study was then independently assessed for potential bias in the sampling, methods, measurement techniques used, and statistical analysis. Studies who met the high-quality standards were included to ensure a reliable synthesis of data.

Table 1. JBI-based quality assessment of included studies.

2.4 Data synthesis and thematic analysis

A thematic analysis approach was employed to examine the results across the 33 included studies. Data was categorized into four main areas of resistance: knowledge deficits, socio-cultural and religious ambiguity, psychological obstacles, and systemic or financial limitations. Intervention strategies were also classified on the basis of their focus areas, such as specific educational programs, emotional or culturally tailored communication models, and policy reforms aimed at financial neutrality. This synthesis facilitated a thorough mapping of the “knowledge-action gap” identified within the existing literature.

3 Results

3.1 Study selection

The search strategy resulted in an initial count of 1,139 records from four databases: PubMed (n = 313), Scopus (n = 743), Web of Science (n = 58), and Google Scholar (n = 25). After the removal of 139 duplicates, 1,000 unique studies retained for title screening. During this screening phase, 871 records were excluded that did not meet our inclusion criteria, because of being off-topic, not an original research, or published in a languages other than English. This reduced the number to 129 abstracts, of which 70 were subsequently removed because they were lacking relevance to our primary research objectives. Of the remaining 59 articles that were evaluated for full-text eligibility, 26 studies were excluded due to incompatible study populations, a lack of focus on specific barriers or strategies, publication dates exceeding our 10-year threshold, or the unavailability of full text. Aa a result, 33 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final quantitative analysis. The study selection process of the selected studies has been illustrated in Figure 1.

3.2 Study characteristics

To provide a detailed overview of the current literature, we categorized the 33 selected studies based on the design, population demographics, and geographic locations (see Table 2). The studies used different methods, including randomized controlled trials, mixed-methods research, and cross-sectional surveys. This helped us to see how organ donation is perceived across different groups including clinicians, university students, patients, and general public from various parts of world.

Table 2. Characteristics of included studies (N = 33).

The barriers to organ donation and not simple or isolated instead they are interconnected and are influenced by many factors. These barriers can be categorized into four categories such as lack of clear information, uncertainty regarding cultural or religious beliefs, fears about the process of organ donation, and gaps in healthcare system. Upon looking at these factors together, we can better identify the barriers and more importantly, can rule out the best ways to address them.

3.3 Barriers influencing organ donation

Our synthesis of the 33 included studies identified the barriers to organ donation are not isolated but interconnected. Instead, these challenges arise from a complex web of social, psychological, and systemic related factors. Across different population, there were four main types that were identified.

3.3.1 Knowledge gaps

The most commonly reported barrier is not a lack of willingness to help, but a lack of proper knowledge. Many people shown willingness to donate organ in theory but hesitate because of lack of understanding about important concepts like brain death, the legal process of consent, and the steps involved in transplantation. Studies conducted across multiple regions reported insufficient awareness and understanding of organ donation procedures among the general population and healthcare professionals (9, 10, 21–23)^. This confusion often prevents well-intentioned individuals from taking the final step to register as donors (9, 24).

3.3.2 Cultural and religious ambiguity

Cultural and religious perspectives play a significant role in influencing decisions about organ donation. Several studies revealed that people are unsure regarding their religious acceptance of organ donation creating hesitation among potential donors (12, 13). In many communities, beliefs about keeping bodily integrity after death also plays a role, which can create a moral or cultural conflict for individuals considering organ donation (14, 15). Research among healthcare professionals and the general population also suggests that individual's personal interpretations of the religious teachings and cultural norms can also influence willingness to donate significantly (25).

3.3.3 Psychological perception and fear

Fear is also an important barrier to organ donation and is reported across different populations. Concerns include fear of surgical complications in living donation, mistrust of the healthcare system, and anxiety related to illegal activities like trafficking (15, 26). Psychological discomfort related to the idea of organ removal after death has also been identified as a factor (16). Emotional reactions such as fear, distrust or discomfort toward organ removal have been identified as factors influencing willingness for organ donation (27).

3.3.4 Systemic and financial realities

Apart from personal beliefs and fears, structural and financial challenges affects organ donation decisions. Potential living donors frequently report concerns such as indirect costs associated with donation, including lost wages, travel expenses, and the post operative recovery period (26, 28). Studies assessing healthcare system practices highlights organizational barriers, such as inadequate communication between healthcare professionals and the families during the process of organ donation (29, 30). These factors can affect family authorization decisions and ultimately limit successful organ donation.

3.4 Strategies to improve organ donation

The literature review identifies that the barriers to organ donation are not insolvable; rather, they can be effectively managed through targeted, evidence-based strategies. This analysis also suggests that the most successful approaches are those that directly address the gaps in knowledge, psychological fears related to donation, and structural inadequacies that were identified earlier in the previous section.

3.4.1 Targeted educational interventions

Education is a vital tool through which public attitudes towards organ donation can be shifted from opposition to acceptance. Research consistently demonstrates that well-structured programs can significantly narrow the knowledge gap. Studies (19, 31) found that targeted training for nursing and dental students led them to improve their knowledge base and their willingness to discuss donation with families. Similarly, for the general public, interventions have been shown to be effective in transforming high levels of “uncertainty” into formal consent by providing clear information regarding brain death and the legal registration process (17, 18).

3.4.2 Strategic communication and media

The most-needed are good communication strategy; one that goes beyond the simple reporting of facts, in order to connect with people at an emotional/cultural level in donation choices. Results show the messages are as important as what they convey. One study (27) found, for example, that radio programmes that provoked particular emotions such as sadness or joy were more effective in reducing the feelings of “medical mistrust” and “disgust” than standard information campaigns. Additionally studies with immigrant groups emphasize the value of culturally-based video messages in correcting misconceptions of fears of death hastened by organ donation (16, 32).

3.4.3 Institutional and policy reform

The literature points out individual willingness is often met with obstacles in healthcare systems, therefore institutional reforms are critical in enabling that willingness. One study (28) illustrated that the CEaD model-specific advanced communication training significantly increased family authorization rates through facilitating the establishment of rapport between hospital staff and clinicians, as well as through clearer clinical instruction during donation discussions. In addition, policy measures, such as dismantling financial disincentives towards living donors, represent the first steps towards achieving the goal of “financial neutrality” and also to developing a more equitable donor setting overall (1, 28, 33). When healthcare institutions put such reforms first, they actively facilitate rather than impede the decision to donate organs.

4 Discussion

4.1 Principal findings and the knowledge-action gap

The review of 33 included studies identified that the principal barrier to organ donation is persistent “knowledge–action” gap. Whilst there is considerable public support for organ donation—with approval levels approaching 80%—particularly in England, reporting that a substantial disconnect persists when individuals are required to translate this willingness into formal registration. This hesitation stems from a lack of formal knowledge regarding the medical definition of “brain death,” legal consent procedures, and registration processes. Studies (21–23) have consistently reported that this uncertainty is a global phenomenon, observed across various regions. This pattern of low awareness has been identified among the general public in Saudi Arabia and Jordan (9, 10), as well as among healthcare professionals, who have demonstrated gaps in their knowledge regarding donation protocols (33). Therefore, the findings suggest that hesitation may be driven by uncertainty rather than outright opposition; furthermore, the observed detachment appears to result from a lack of procedural understanding rather than a lack of altruistic intent. Ultimately, the most effective means of shifting public attitudes involves systematic educational interventions that provide clear and practical information regarding the transplantation process (17, 18).

4.2 Socio-cultural and religious determinants

Beyond mere ignorance of this nature, there exist complex webs woven from socio-cultural beliefs ranging from religious ambiguity to outright opposition to accepting any form of post-mortem organ donation. Numerous studies indicate that the uncertainty directly stemming from concerns regarding religious sanction is a major cause of delays in decision-making; Muslim-majority regions are particularly affected by this (12, 13). Furthermore, shared fears regarding the preservation of bodily integrity after death have reinforced the hesitation observed in recent initiatives undertaken in Syria and Kazakhstan (14, 15). However, there is growing evidence suggesting that religion does not inherently act as a barrier; rather, misinterpretation or a lack of clear guidance can give rise to uncertainty. For instance, research conducted among healthcare professionals (25) demonstrates that religious arguments can also be utilized in a constructive manner to advocate for organ donation. To overcome these barriers, the evidence suggests that a shift toward context-specific messaging represents the right path forward. Interestingly, emotional communication strategies—such as radio or video campaigns—have proven more successful than the mere dissemination of standard information in mitigating “medical mistrust” and feelings of aversion (16, 27, 43).

4.3 Psychological barriers and medical mistrust

Fear and systemic mistrust creates profound psychological deterrents that require institutional reform to overcome. People worry about the concerns regarding surgical risks and long-term health consequences especially regarding living donation (1, 28). Dissatisfaction with healthcare systems was another prominent issue, with participants expressing fears of organ misuse, trafficking, or premature declaration of death (15, 16). These affective responses, including the “ick” factor (27) indicate that donation decisions are shaped by perceptual responses that require different intervention strategies. This analysis emphasize that success is dependent on the quality of clinical interaction; specialized training (29). On the other hand, CEaD model, enables healthcare staff to establish necessary rapport with grieving families to improve authorization rates. Furthermore, authorization can also get affected even when potential donors are identified due to organizational challenges and communication gaps (30).

4.4 Structural barriers and policy-level interventions

Ultimately, system-level barriers and financial realities play a significant role in limiting donation. Financial concerns such as lost wages, travel expenses, and recovery costs—consistently emerge among potential living donors (1, 28). Policy measures designed to achieve “financial neutralization” are essential for creating an equitable environment for donation (32). These findings suggest that a dual strategy is required to increase organ donation rates one that focuses on both individual perceptions and structural deficiencies. Educational efforts should be centered on targeted training, particularly for healthcare students (19, 31, 34). By combining emotionally and culturally relevant messaging with institutional reforms, financial and psychological risks can be mitigated or managed; in this way, the gap between theoretical willingness and life-saving action can be effectively bridged.

4.5 Strengths

The strongest aspect of this systematic review is its evidence base, comprising 33 studies drawn from various countries and the internet; these were sourced from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Adhering to PRISMA-guided selection processes, this analysis presents a comprehensive overview of both barriers and evidence-based interventions (e.g., the Siminoff et al. communication model) (29). Furthermore, the diversity in demographics ranging from healthcare providers to the general public ensures that the key themes identified herein namely, the “knowledge-action gap” and “medical mistrust” remain relevant within a broad global perspective.

4.6 Limitations

Due to the minimum publication timeframe of 10 years and the restriction to the English language, relevant long-term literature or regional data published in other languages may have been overlooked. Furthermore, given the significant variability in the designs of the 33 included studies, it is possible that some of these findings may not be applicable to all clinical settings. Inclusion of healthcare workers may have introduced sample heterogeneity, limiting generalizability as organ donation barriers vary across regions and religions. Finally, since many studies utilized self-report surveys, a risk of social desirability bias exists in those studies a concern underscored by claims that participants' expressed willingness to donate does not necessarily correlate directly with their actual registration or consent to donate.

5 Conclusion

This review of 33 international studies demonstrates the root cause of low organ donation is not so much from a lack of kindness as it is a “knowledge-action gap.” But despite the fact that nearly everyone tends to say that they support donation in principle with support as high as 80 percent in some countries few people sign up to be donors at all. This is so as people typically feel a lack of understanding of what brain death is or how a legal registration process works. To alleviate this, we must shift away from generic advertisements and instead utilize pedagogical approaches that communicate with individuals' feelings and societies. Healthcare workers must also be trained in more effective communication, since patients can gain more consent through open and honest conversations with families, researchers show. Lastly, the system must help living donors financially by preventing them from losing money on travel or absent work. So, saving more lives through organ transplant requires two important actions—making it easier for the public to appreciate the process and reforming the hospitals themselves that organ donations are handled through. It will be finally when the public is well informed and the medical system assists that we will be on the path to closing the gap between “wanting to help” and “taking action”.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI was used to generate the table.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Alan Langnas, University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States

Reviewed by: Anju Moni Rabha, Lakhimpur Medical College and Hospital, India

Jilmy Jose, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, India