Psychosocial and socioeconomic issues facing the living kidney donor

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

Ethical Issues in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: An Update from a Psychosocial Perspective

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) currently represents the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal failure. LDKT is a serious event with profound psychological, interpersonal, familial, and social implications. Over the last few years, there has been an exponential growth in living donation programs involving genetically and emotionally related donors, as well as people who donate to an unrelated and unknown subject. The implementation of paired exchange programs, Samaritan donation, and preemptive transplantation raise further ethical issues, which are inextricably linked to the unique psychosocial context of both the donor and the recipient. The present narrative review aims to provide an update on the main ethical challenges related to LDKT. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed/Medline. The results of the most relevant studies were narratively synthesized from a psychosocial perspective around the four principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Finally, we discussed the potential future directions to provide an effective, patient-centered, and ethical psychosocial assessment and follow-up of living donors and recipients that underwent LDKT.

Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators

INTRODUCTION

The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k-means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision-making process.

RESULTS

Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation-related risks are needed.

Perceptions of Psychosocial and Ethical Issues and the Psychological Characteristics of Donors in the Clinical Setting of Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

There are several psychosocial and ethical issues surrounding the decision to be a living kidney donor. The present study aimed to determine the perceptions of psychosocial and ethical issues that living kidney donors may have, and analyze their psychological characteristics.

METHODS

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 donors. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the thematic elements of the transcripts. All procedures were approved by the relevant review board.

RESULTS

Four main categories were identified: Awareness of family dynamics, barriers to a proper understanding, contrasting psychological effects of recipient presence in clinical practice, insufficient information explained in informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Donors felt that they took on the "role as a care giver" for the recipient and were less aware of themselves as patients. This is a new concept that has not been shown in previous studies. Donors exist within the recipient and family, and the range of their autonomy may go beyond the traditional concept of autonomy and be rooted in relational autonomy. This study suggested that medical treatment in the presence of the recipient promotes the relational autonomy of the donor.

Anonymous living liver donor perspectives on the role of family in their donation experience

Anonymous living organ donation is an understudied but rapidly expanding sector in organ transplantation, in which donors choose to donate anonymously to a recipient in need. The family members and close support network of living donors often play a crucial role in the donation process, and their influence likely has a large impact on the decision to donate as well as the donor's physical and psychosocial state. However, there is limited data examining the impact donor families have on the anonymous donor, and in turn, the impact donation has on donors' families. To assess this, we analyzed a semi-structured qualitative interview on living donor experiences with 26 anonymous living liver donors for common themes concerning donor families. Responses surrounding donor families were grouped into three major categories: (1) family reactions to donation, ranging from (a) pride/support, (b) fear/worry, and (c) jealousy/anger; (2) the impact of donation on donor-family relationships, including (a) positive impacts, (b) negative impacts, (c) a positive ripple effect; (3) gaps in institutional support for donor families. This study provides unique information on anonymous living liver donor perceptions related to their families and will help improve existing programs to accommodate donor family needs and cater to donor relationships.

Wages, Travel, and Lodging Reimbursement by the National Kidney Registry: An Important Step Toward Financial Neutrality for Living Kidney Donors in the United States

BACKGROUND

Since 2007, the National Living Donor Assistance Center has provided the most financial support to US living donors meeting specific income criteria by reimbursing travel, meal, and lodging expenses. In 2019, the National Kidney Registry started providing lost wages, travel, and lodging reimbursement via their Donor Shield program. Donor Shield is automatically provided to donors who participate in kidney paired donation through the National Kidney Registry or who donate at a Donor Shield Direct center, without any income restrictions.

METHODS

The support donors across the United States received from the Donor Shield program between January 2019 and February 2020 was studied.

RESULTS

During the study period, 326 (25.9%) of the 1260 donors covered by Donor Shield, from 46 programs received reimbursements amounting to a total of $647 384.45, with $472 389.97 (73.0%) covering lost wages. Median reimbursement per donor was $1813.80 (range, $44.0-$165.63). Eighty-one percent of 108 reimbursed donors who were surveyed reported that the lack of these reimbursements would have posed a financial hardship, and 4% said they would have been unable to donate without this support.

CONCLUSIONS

Expansion of lost wages reimbursement programs to all donors in the United States would be an important step toward achieving financial neutrality for this unique population and could also help meet the growing demand for transplantable organs by increasing living donation rates.

Living Kidney Donors' Financial Expenses and Mental Health

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors incur donation-related expenses, but how these expenses impact postdonation mental health is unknown.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, the association between mental health and donor-incurred expenses (both out-of-pocket costs and lost wages) was examined in 821 people who donated a kidney at one of the 12 transplant centers in Canada between 2009 and 2014. Mental health was measured by the RAND Short Form-36 Health Survey along with Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory.

RESULTS

A total of 209 donors (25%) reported expenses of >5500 Canadian dollars. Compared with donors who incurred lower expenses, those who incurred higher expenses demonstrated significantly worse mental health-related quality of life 3 months after donation, with a trend towards worse anxiety and depression, after controlling for predonation mental health-related quality of life and other risk factors for psychological distress. Between-group differences for donors with lower and higher expenses on these measures were no longer significant 12 months after donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donor transplant programs should ensure that adequate psychosocial support is available to all donors who need it, based on known and unknown risk factors. Efforts to minimize donor-incurred expenses and to better support the mental well-being of donors need to continue. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of donor reimbursement programs, which mitigate donor expenses, on postdonation mental health.

The Spanish Version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire: Validity, Reliability, and Characterization of Living Donors With the Highest Fear of Kidney Failure

Background.

Measures of fear of progression or recurrence of illnesses have been criticized for neglecting cross-cultural validity. Therefore, we assessed the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire (FKFQ), to determine whether postdonation fear of kidney failure (FKF) influenced the donors’ psychosocial status, and define variables that characterized donors with high FKFQ scores.

Methods.

We included 492 participants (211 donors) in a multicenter, 11-year, retrospective, cross-sectional study. Donors were classified with a Latent Class Analysis of the FKFQ-item scores and characterized with a multivariable logistic regression analysis. We calculated the risk ratio based on predicted marginal probabilities.

Results.

The Spanish version of the FKFQ showed acceptable psychometric properties. FKF was uncommon among donors, but we detected a small subgroup (n = 21, 9.9%) with high FKF (mean FKFQ score = 14.5, 3.1 SD). Compared with other donors, these donors reported higher anxiety and depression (38% and 29% of potential anxiety and depressive disorders), worse quality of life, and less satisfaction with the donation. Donors with high FKFQ scores were characterized by higher neuroticism combined with postdonation physical symptoms that interfered with daily activities.

Conclusions.

The FKFQ was cross-culturally valid, and thus, it may be used to assess the FKF in Spanish-speaking donors. New interventions that promote positive affectivity and evidence-based treatments for worry could be adapted for treating FKF.

Psychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study

Living kidney donors' follow-up is usually focused on the assessment of the surgical and medical outcomes. Whilst the psychosocial follow-up is advocated in literature. It is still not entirely clear which exact psychosocial factors are related to a poor psychosocial outcome of donors. The aim of our study is to prospectively assess the donors' psychosocial risks factors to impaired health-related quality of life at 1-year post-donation and link their psychosocial profile before donation with their respective outcomes. The influence of the recipient's medical outcomes on their donor's psychosocial outcome was also examined. Sixty donors completed a battery of standardized psychometric instruments (quality of life, mental health, coping strategies, personality, socio-economic status), and ad hoc items regarding the donation process (e.g., motivations for donation, decision-making, risk assessment, and donor-recipient relationship). Donors' 1-year psychosocial follow-up was favorable and comparable with the general population. So far, cluster-analysis identified a subgroup of donors (28%) with a post-donation reduction of their health-related quality of life. This subgroup expressed comparatively to the rest, the need for more pre-donation information regarding surgery risks, and elevated fear of losing the recipient and commitment to stop their suffering.

Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action

The American Society of Nephrology, the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association and the International Society of Nephrology Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology have identified ten broad areas of ethical concern as priority challenges that require collaborative action. Here, we describe these challenges - equity in access to kidney failure care, avoiding futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in kidney disease prevention and care, the ethical implications of genetic kidney diseases, responsible advocacy for kidney health and management of conflicts of interest - with the aim of highlighting the need for ethical analysis of specific issues, as well as for the development of tools and training to support clinicians who treat patients with kidney disease in practising ethically and contributing to ethical policy-making.

Post-donation satisfaction in kidney transplantation: a survey of living donors in Japan

Background

No studies using a valid, standardized method to measure post-donation satisfaction levels among living kidney donors (LKDs) have been published.

Methods

Donor satisfaction levels were measured using the Japanese version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8), a validated, self-report questionnaire. To identify factors related to post-donation satisfaction levels, we compared donors’ sociodemographic and psychological characteristics and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), as well as recipients’ clinical characteristics and SF-36 scores between donors with and without low satisfaction. In addition, donors’ perceptions of the donation results and transplant procedure were assessed using measures that we developed.

Results

The mean (standard deviation [SD]) CSQ-8 score for the 195 participants was 26.9 (3.4). Twenty-nine (14.9%) respondents with total scores < 1 SD below the mean CSQ-8 score were placed into the low satisfaction group. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that lower perceptions of receiving adequate information prior to transplantation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.079–0.379; p < 0.001), lower optimism according to the Life Orientation Test (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.045–1.470; p = 0.014), and increased serum creatinine levels in the paired recipient (OR = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.250–1.011; p = 0.054) independently increased the odds of having less satisfaction with donation.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that careful pre-donation education and more detailed informed consent may be needed, especially in LKDs with low constitutional optimism.

Barriers to access in pediatric living-donor liver transplantation

Children receiving a LDLT have superior post-transplant outcomes, but this procedure is only used for 10% of transplant recipients. Better understanding about barriers toward LDLT and the sociodemographic characteristics that influence these underlying mechanisms would help to inform strategies to increase its use. We conducted an online, anonymous survey of parents/caregivers for children awaiting, or have received, a liver transplant regarding their knowledge and attitudes about LDLT. The survey was completed by 217 respondents. While 97% of respondents understood an individual could donate a portion of their liver, only 72% knew the steps in evaluation, and 69% understood the donor surgery was covered by the recipient's insurance. Individuals with public insurance were less likely than those with private insurance to know the steps for LDLT evaluation (44% vs 82%; P < 0.001). Respondents with public insurance were less likely to know someone that had been a living donor (44% vs 56%; P = 0.005) as were individuals without a college degree (64% vs 85%; P = 0.007). Nearly all respondents generally trusted their healthcare team. Among respondents, 82% believed they were well-informed about LDLT but individuals with public insurance were significantly less likely to feel well-informed (67% vs 87%; P = 0.03) and to understand how donor surgery might impact donor work/time off (44% vs 81%; P = 0.001). Substantial gaps exist in parental understanding about LDLT, including its evaluation, potential benefits, and complications. Greater emphasis on addressing these barriers, especially to individuals with fewer resources, will be helpful to expand the use of LDLT.

Multicenter investigation of the reliability and validity of the live donor assessment tool as an enhancement to the psychosocial evaluation of living donors

The live donor assessment tool (LDAT) is the first psychosocial assessment tool developed to standardize live donor psychosocial evaluations. A multicenter study was conducted to explore reliability and validity of the LDAT and determine its ability to enhance the psychosocial evaluation beyond its center of origin. Four transplant programs participated, each with their own team of evaluators and unique demographics. Liver and kidney living donors (LDs) undergoing both standard psychosocial evaluation and LDAT from June 2015 to September 2016 were studied. LDAT interrater reliability, associations between LDAT scores and psychosocial evaluation outcome, and psychosocial outcomes postdonation were tested. 386 LD evaluations were compared and had a mean LDAT score of 67.34 ± 7.57. In 140 LDs with two LDATs by different observers, the interrater scores correlated (r = 0.63). LDAT scores at each center and overall stratified to the conventional grouping of psychosocial risk level. LDAT scores of 131 subjects who proceeded with donation were expectedly lower in LDs requiring postdonation counseling (t = -2.78, P = .01). The LDAT had good reliability between raters and predicted outcome of the psychosocial evaluation across centers. It can be used to standardize language among clinicians to communicate psychosocial risk of LD candidates and assist teams when anticipating postdonation psychosocial needs.

Death anxiety and psychological distress post-donation in non-directed living kidney donors

The current study sought to assess death anxiety and psychological distress among kidney donors, in comparison to a control population. Seventy-eight non-directed living kidney donors were recruited through the Israeli voluntary kidney donation association. This sample was compared to 396 participants from a control population. The results revealed that non-directed living kidney donors had higher levels of death anxiety in comparison to the control population while their psychological distress was lower in comparison to the control population. The results of this study highlight the importance of relating to non-directed living kidney donors' death anxiety.

Mood, body image, fear of kidney failure, life satisfaction, and decisional stability following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC study

Prior studies demonstrate that most living kidney donors (LKDs) report no adverse psychosocial outcomes; however, changes in psychosocial functioning at the individual donor level have not been routinely captured. We studied psychosocial outcomes predonation and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation in 193 LKDs and 20 healthy controls (HCs). There was minimal to no mood disturbance, body image concerns, fear of kidney failure, or life dissatisfaction, indicating no incremental changes in these outcomes over time and no significant differences between LKDs and HCs. The incidence of any new-onset adverse outcomes postdonation was as follows: mood disturbance (16%), fear of kidney failure (21%), body image concerns (13%), and life dissatisfaction (10%). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs with more mood disturbance symptoms, higher anxiety about future kidney health, low body image, and low life satisfaction prior to surgery were at highest risk of these same outcomes postdonation. It is important to note that some LKDs showed improvement in psychosocial functioning from pre- to postdonation. Findings support the balanced presentation of psychosocial risks to potential donors as well as the development of a donor registry to capture psychosocial outcomes beyond the mandatory 2-year follow-up period in the United States.

The Living Donor Lost Wages Trial: Study Rationale and Protocol

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper describes the background, rationale, and design of an NIH-funded, single-center study to test the impact of offering reimbursement for donor lost wages incurred during the post-nephrectomy recovery period on the live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) rate in newly evaluated kidney transplant candidates, to examine whether offering reimbursement for donor lost wages reduces racial disparity in LDKT rates, and to determine whether higher reimbursement amounts lead to higher LDKT rates.

RECENT FINDINGS

LDKT is the optimal treatment for renal failure. However, living kidney donation has declined in the past decade, particularly among men, younger adults, blacks, and low-income adults. There is evidence that donation-related costs may deter both transplant candidates and potential donors from considering LDKT. Lost wages is a major source of financial loss for some living donors and, unlike travel and lodging expenses, is not reimbursed by financial assistance programs.

SUMMARY

The study addresses the transplant community's call to reduce the financial burden of living donation and examine its impact on LDKT rates. Findings have the potential to influence policy, clinical practice, LDKT access, and income-related and racial disparities in LDKT and living donation.

Death of recipients after kidney living donation triples donors' risk of dropping out from follow-up: a retrospective study

Although kidney transplantation from the donation of a living donor is a safe treatment for end-stage renal disease, inferences about safety of living kidney donors might be biased by an informative censoring caused by the noninclusion of a substantial percentage of donors lost to follow-up. With the aim of assessing the presence of a potential informative censoring in living kidney donation outcomes of Catalan donors for a period of 12 years, 573 donors followed and lost to follow-up were compared. Losses of follow-up over time were also assessed by univariate and multivariate survival analysis, along with Cox regression. Younger and older ages, and the death of their recipient differentiated those donors who were lost to follow-up over time. The risk of dropping out from follow-up was more than twofold for the youngest and oldest donors, and almost threefold for those donors whose recipient died. Results of studies on postdonation outcomes of Catalan living kidney donors might have overlooked older and younger cases, and, remarkably, a percentage of donors whose recipient died. If these donors showed a higher incidence of psychological problems, conclusions about living donors' safety might be compromised thus emphasizing the necessity of sustained surveillance of donors and prompt identification of these cases.

Health Insurance Trends in United States Living Kidney Donors (2004 to 2015)

Some transplant programs consider the lack of health insurance as a contraindication to living kidney donation. Still, prior studies have shown that many adults are uninsured at time of donation. We extend the study of donor health insurance status over a longer time period and examine associations between insurance status and relevant sociodemographic and health characteristics. We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registry for all living kidney donors (LKDs) between July 2004 and July 2015. Of the 53 724 LKDs with known health insurance status, 8306 (16%) were uninsured at the time of donation. Younger (18 to 34 years old), male, minority, unemployed, less educated, unmarried LKDs and those who were smokers and normotensive were more likely to not have health insurance at the time of donation. Compared to those with no health risk factors (i.e. obesity, smoking, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60, proteinuria) (14%), LKDs with 1 (18%) or ≥2 (21%) health risk factors at the time of donation were more likely to be uninsured (p < 0.0001). Among those with ≥2 health risk factors, blacks (28%) and Hispanics (27%) had higher likelihood of being uninsured compared to whites (19%; p < 0.001). Study findings underscore the importance of providing health insurance benefits to all previous and future LKDs.

Concern for Lost Income Following Donation Deters Some Patients From Talking to Potential Living Donors

CONTEXT

Some living kidney donors report lost income during recovery from surgery. Little is known about whether concern for living donor's lost income affects the decision to undergo donation evaluation and the willingness of transplant candidates to discuss living kidney donation (LKD) with others.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether transplant patients were told by potential donors about lost income concerns and whether patients chose not to discuss LKD with others due to lost income concerns.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Kidney transplant patients (185 wait-listed candidates, 171 deceased donor recipients, and 100 live donor recipients) at 2 centers completed a questionnaire to assess whether concern about donor's lost income was a consideration in discussion about LKD with others.

RESULTS

One-third (32%) were told by a family member/friend that they were willing to donate but were concerned about potential lost income. The majority of those who expressed financial concern (64%) did not initiate donation evaluation. Many patients (42%) chose not to discuss living donation with a family member/friend due to concern about the impact of lost income on the donor. In the multivariable model, lower annual household income was the only statistically significant predictor of both having a potential donor expressing lost income concern and choosing not to talk to someone because of lost income concern.

CONCLUSION

Findings from the current study underscore how concern about income loss for living donors may affect decision-making by both transplant candidates and potential donors.

Living Kidney Donors' Information Needs and Preferences

INTRODUCTION

Past research suggests the information exchanged from transplant centers to potential living kidney donors is, in many cases, suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to assess donors' perceptions of the information provided while considering living donation.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews conducted with 81 past living donors seen at 1 mid-Atlantic transplant center assessed the extent to which living kidney donors deemed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-mandated information useful to making a decision about donation and to which more information was or would have been desired before donating. Understanding of and satisfaction with the information was also assessed.

RESULTS

Participants were primarily white (67.9%), females (67.9%), with an average age of 57.8 years. Perceived usefulness ranged from a mean of 3.1 for the confidentiality of the transplant center's communication to 4.1 for postoperative care and short-term medical risks of donation. Donors of minority descent as well as those with more education and less income found the information provided most useful. Few donors desired additional information about the right to opt out of (8.6%) or decline (13.6%) donation; however, most wanted more information regarding the risk of being refused health, disability and/or life insurance after donating (77.8%), and insurance coverage for future health problems (66.7%).

DISCUSSION

This study revealed limited usefulness of certain CMS-mandated topics and a desire for additional information about donation. Efforts to standardize the informed consent process should incorporate donors' perspectives as to the specific topics, quantity of information, and the mode of communication found most useful when considering living donation.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Living Kidney Donation: A Single Center Experience

This article describes the development and implementation of an initiative at one transplant center to annually assess psychosocial outcomes of living kidney donors. The current analysis focuses on a cohort of adults (n = 208) who donated a kidney at BIDMC between September 2005 and August 2012, in which two post-donation annual assessments could be examined. One and two year post-donation surveys were returned by 59 % (n = 123) and 47 % (n = 98) of LKDs, respectively. Those who did not complete any survey were more likely to be younger (p = 0.001), minority race/ethnicity (p < 0.001), and uninsured at the time of donation (p = 0.01) compared to those who returned at least one of the two annual surveys. The majority of donors reported no adverse physical or psychosocial consequences of donation, high satisfaction with the donation experience, and no donation decision regret. However, a sizable minority of donors felt more pain intensity than expected and recovery time was much slower than expected, and experienced a clinically significant decline in vitality. We describe how these outcomes are used to inform clinical practice at our transplant center as well as highlight challenges in donor surveillance over time.

Direct and Indirect Costs Following Living Kidney Donation: Findings From the KDOC Study

Some living kidney donors (LKDs) incur costs associated with donation, although these costs are not well characterized in the United States. We collected cost data in the 12 mo following donation from 182 LKDs participating in the multicenter prospective Kidney Donor Outcomes Cohort (KDOC) Study. Most LKDs (n = 167, 92%) had one direct cost or more following donation, including ground transportation (86%), health care (41%), meals (53%), medications (36%), lodging (23%), and air transportation (12%). LKDs missed 33 072 total work hours, 40% of which were unpaid and led to $302 175 in lost wages (mean $1660). Caregivers lost $68 655 in wages (mean $377). Although some donors received financial assistance, 89% had a net financial loss in the 12-mo period, with one-third (33%) reporting a loss exceeding $2500. Financial burden was higher for those with greater travel distance to the transplant center (Spearman's ρ = 0.26, p < 0.001), lower household income (Spearman's ρ = -0.25, p < 0.001), and more unpaid work hours missed (Spearman's ρ = 0.52, p < 0.001). Achieving financial neutrality for LKDs must be an immediate priority for the transplant community, governmental agencies, insurance companies, nonprofit organizations, and society at large.

Uterus transplantation: current progress and future prospects

Even if reproductive medicine has been remarkably successful during the past few decades, with the introduction of in vitro fertilization in the late 1970s and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the early 1990s, it has been repeatedly mocked by infertility due to an absolute uterine factor. No treatment has been available for the women suffering from an absent or dysfunctional uterus, in terms of carrying a pregnancy. Approximately one in 500 women suffer from absolute uterine infertility, and the option so far to become a mother has been to either adopt or utilize gestational surrogacy. As of today, a total of eleven cases of human uterus transplantations have been reported worldwide, conducted in three different countries. The results of these initial experimental cases far exceed what might be expected of a novel surgical method. Many more uterus transplantations are to be expected in the near future, as other research teams' preparations are being ready to be put into clinical practice. In this review, we summarize the current worldwide experience of uterus transplantation as a treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility and the future prospects of human uterus transplantation.

Predonation Direct and Indirect Costs Incurred by Adults Who Donated a Kidney: Findings From the KDOC Study

Limited information exists on the predonation costs incurred by eventual living kidney donors (LKDs). Expenses related to completion of the donation evaluation were collected from 194 LKDs participating in the multi-center, prospective Kidney Donor Outcomes Cohort (KDOC) Study. Most LKDs (n = 187, 96%) reported one or more direct costs, including ground transportation (80%), healthcare (24%), lodging (17%) and air transportation (14%), totaling $101 484 (USD; mean = $523 ± 942). Excluding paid vacation or sick leave, donor and companion lost wages totaled $35 918 (mean = $187 ± 556) and $14 378 (mean = $76 ± 311), respectively. One-third of LKDs used paid vacation or sick leave to avoid incurring lost wages. Few LKDs reported receiving financial support from the transplant candidate (6%), transplant candidate's family (3%), a nonprofit organization (3%), the National Living Donor Assistance Center (7%), or transplant center (3%). Higher total costs were significantly associated with longer distance traveled to the transplant center (p < 0.001); however, total costs were not associated with age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, marital status, insurance status, or transplant center. Moderate predonation direct and indirect costs are common for adults who complete the donation evaluation. Potential LKDs should be advised of these possible costs, and the transplant community should examine additional strategies to reimburse donors for them.

Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: Reducing Financial Barriers to Live Kidney Donation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

Live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment for eligible people with late-stage kidney disease. Despite this, living kidney donation rates have declined in the United States in recent years. A potential source of this decline is the financial impact on potential and actual living kidney donors (LKDs). Recent evidence indicates that the economic climate may be associated with the decline in LDKT and that there are nontrivial financial ramifications for some LKDs. In June 2014, the American Society of Transplantation's Live Donor Community of Practice convened a Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation. The conference included transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders (with the financial support of 10 other organizations) and sought to identify best practices, knowledge gaps, and opportunities pertaining to living kidney donation. This workgroup was tasked with exploring systemic and financial barriers to living kidney donation. The workgroup reviewed literature that assessed the financial effect of living kidney donation, analyzed employment and insurance factors, discussed international models for addressing direct and indirect costs faced by LKDs, and summarized current available resources. The workgroup developed the following series of recommendations to reduce financial and systemic barriers and achieve financial neutrality for LKDs: (1) allocate resources for standardized reimbursement of LKDs' lost wages and incidental costs; (2) pass legislation to offer employment and insurability protections to LKDs; (3) create an LKD financial toolkit to provide standardized, vetted education to donors and providers about options to maximize donor coverage and minimize financial effect within the current climate; and (4) promote further research to identify systemic barriers to living donation and LDKT to ensure the creation of mitigation strategies.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Overcoming Disparities in Live Kidney Donation in the US--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

Despite its superior outcomes relative to chronic dialysis and deceased donor kidney transplantation, live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is less likely to occur in minorities, older adults, and poor patients than in those who are white, younger, and have higher household income. In addition, there is considerable geographic variability in LDKT rates. Concomitantly, in recent years, the rate of living kidney donation (LKD) has stopped increasing and is declining, after decades of consistent growth. Particularly noteworthy is the decline in LKD among black, younger, male, and lower-income adults. The Live Donor Community of Practice within the American Society of Transplantation, with financial support from 10 other organizations, held a Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation in June 2014. The purpose of this meeting was to identify LKD best practices and knowledge gaps that might influence LDKT, with a focus on patient and donor education, evaluation efficiencies, disparities, and systemic barriers to LKD. In this article, we discuss trends in LDKT/LKD and emerging novel strategies for attenuating disparities, and we offer specific recommendations for future clinical practice, education, research, and policy from the Consensus Conference Workgroup focused on disparities.

Consensus conference on best practices in live kidney donation: recommendations to optimize education, access, and care

Live donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for most patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease; however, the rate of living kidney donation has declined in the United States. A consensus conference was held June 5-6, 2014 to identify best practices and knowledge gaps pertaining to live donor kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. Transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders discussed processes for educating transplant candidates and potential living donors about living kidney donation; efficiencies in the living donor evaluation process; disparities in living donation; and financial and systemic barriers to living donation. We summarize the consensus recommendations for best practices in these educational and clinical domains, future research priorities, and possible public policy initiatives to remove barriers to living kidney donation.

Mental health among living kidney donors: a prospective comparison with matched controls from the general population

The impact of living kidney donation on donors' mental health has not been sufficiently nor comprehensively studied. Earlier studies demonstrated that mental health did not change in the majority of donors, however they often lacked a suitable control group and/or had other methodological limitations. Consequently, it remains unclear whether changes in mental health found among a minority of donors reflect normal fluctuations. In this study we matched 135 donors with individuals from the general Dutch population on gender and baseline mental health and compared changes in mental health over time. Mental health was measured using the Brief Symptom Inventory and Mental Health Continuum Short Form. Primary analyses compared baseline and 6 months follow-up. Secondary analyses compared baseline and 9 (controls) or 15 months (donors) follow-up. Primary multilevel regression analyses showed that there was no change in psychological complaints (p = 0.20) and wellbeing (p = 0.10) over time and donors and controls did not differ from one another in changes in psychological complaints (p = 0.48) and wellbeing (p = 0.85). Secondary analyses also revealed no difference in changes between the groups. We concluded that changes in mental health in the short term after donation do not significantly differ from normal fluctuations found in the Dutch general population.

International survey of nephrologists' perceptions and attitudes about rewards and compensations for kidney donation

BACKGROUND

Payment for organ donation, whether in the form of incentives, rewards or compensation is highly debated and has been denounced by many professional and legislative bodies. Despite the passionate discussion in the literature, there is very limited data on attitudes and perceptions of physicians about providing rewards or compensation to organ donors. We investigated the relationship between demographic and practice characteristics of nephrologists and their perceptions and attitudes about rewards and compensations for organ donation.

METHODS

Using a web-based survey, we explored the views of nephrologists around the world about rewards and compensations for kidney donation. The relationship between attitudes and demographic characteristics of 1280 nephrologists from 74 countries was examined by univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Seventy-five percent agreed with donor health insurance, 26% favored direct financial compensation and 31% agreed with financial rewards for unrelated donors. Sixty-six percent believed that rewards will lead to increased donation. Seventy-three percent indicated that rewards will lead to exploitation of the poor and 78% agreed with legislation prohibiting organ sales. Thirty-seven percent believed that rewards will negatively impact deceased-donor transplantation. Nephrologists from India/Pakistan and the Middle East had more favorable views about rewards, while respondents from Latin America and Europe, older than 50, female nephrologists and those practicing in rural areas had less favorable views.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a minority of nephrologists favor rewards for donation, many agree with some compensation and a considerable majority favor donor health insurance. Perceptions of nephrologists about rewards and compensation are influenced by age, sex, urban versus rural location and geographic region of practice.

Managing the Psychosocial and Financial Consequences of Living Donation

There has been dramatic growth in the last decade in the literature on psychosocial and financial impacts of living organ donation. With this growth has come recognition that these impacts must be considered when educating prospective donors about the donation process, and when planning donor follow-up care after donation. Our review highlights recent studies that provide new information on the nature of psychosocial and financial outcomes in living donors, with special attention to studies examining unrelated donors (i.e., those with no biologic or longstanding emotional connection to the transplant patient), given that these individuals represent a growing segment of the living donor population. Limitations and gaps in available evidence are noted. We also discuss recent recommendations for post-donation monitoring of donors' psychosocial and financial outcomes, and we consider advances in evidence regarding interventions and prevention strategies to minimize any adverse psychosocial and financial impacts of living donation.

The unjustified classification of kidney donors as patients with CKD: critique and recommendations

Unilateral nephrectomy for kidney donation results in loss of about 30% of baseline GFR, leaving some donors with GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), the threshold for the diagnosis CKD. This has resulted in insurability problems for some donors. This article reviews the definition of CKD, risks associated with CKD, and large follow-up studies on the vital status and risk of ESRD in kidney donors. It also provides evidence that kidney donors, despite having reduced GFR, are not at increased risk for CKD-associated morbidity and mortality. Epidemiologic studies, most with follow-up <10 years, have shown an association between GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) and higher mortality and progression to ESRD. Low GFR in the absence of any other markers for kidney disease, however, conveys attenuated or minimal risk. Of note, studies of long-term kidney donor outcomes (6-45 years) have not shown excess mortality or ESRD. The limitation of the collective evidence is that the increased risks associated with GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) were demonstrated in much larger cohorts than those reported for kidney donor outcomes, but donor outcome studies have substantially longer follow-up. On the basis of current findings, kidney donors with low GFR and no other signs of kidney disease should not be classified as having CKD. This is definitely not the reward they deserve, and, more important, the implications of reduced GFR in donors are not associated with unfavorable outcomes.

Ethical considerations in live donor transplantation: should complications be tolerated?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although living donor transplantation is considered an ethically acceptable undertaking for the purpose of saving another's life, its safety remains under investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although living donors undertake considerable medical risks for no direct medical benefit, the question remains whether the risks are acceptable and should be tolerated by providers and patients or whether additional interventions and safeguards are needed to reduce and/or prevent complications. By reviewing complication risk statistics and synthesizing empirical research regarding risk-taking thresholds and attitudes, this paper examines the possibilities for determining an acceptable level of complication risk for living donors. This paper also delineates the ethical tensions surrounding protecting donors from unnecessary risk versus respecting donor autonomy to accept risks, and concludes by discussing the importance of donor follow-up and the value of donor registries.

SUMMARY

In the absence of information on long-term donor outcomes, transplant centers should take special precautions to protect prospective donors given increasing pressures to reduce the organ shortage and concerns that donors often disregard risks to themselves to save the lives of others.

Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing

CONTEXT

Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

METHODS

Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation).

RESULTS

Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.