Measuring the Expectations of Kidney Donors: Initial Psychometric Properties of the Living Donation Expectancies Questionnaire

Combining transplant professional's psychosocial donor evaluation and donor self-report measures to optimise the prediction of HRQoL after kidney donation: an observational prospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Living donor kidney transplantation is currently the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. The psychosocial evaluation of kidney donor candidates relies mostly on the clinical viewpoint of transplant professionals because evidence-based guidelines for psychosocial donor eligibility are currently lacking. However, the accuracy of these clinical risk judgements and the potential added value of a systematic self-reported screening procedure are as yet unknown. The current study examined the effectiveness of the psychosocial evaluation by transplant professionals and the potential value of donor self-report measures in optimising the donor evaluation. Based on the stress-vulnerability model, the predictive value of predonation, intradonation and postdonation factors to impaired longer term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of kidney donors was studied.

DESIGN

An observational prospective multicentre study.

SETTING

Seven Dutch transplantation centres.

PARTICIPANTS

588 potential donors participated, of whom 361 donated. Complete prospective data of 230 donors were available. Also, 1048 risk estimation questionnaires were completed by healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Transplant professionals (nephrologists, coordinating nurses, social workers and psychologists) filled in risk estimation questionnaires on kidney donor candidates. Furthermore, 230 kidney donors completed questionnaires (eg, on HRQoL) before and 6 and 12 months after donation.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

HRQoL, demographic and preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative health characteristics, perceived support, donor cognitions, recipient functioning and professionals risk estimation questionnaires.

RESULTS

On top of other predictors, such as the transplant professionals' risk assessments, donor self-report measures significantly predicted impaired longer term HRQoL after donation, particularly by poorer predonation physical (17%-28% explained variance) and psychological functioning (23%).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study endorses the effectiveness of the psychosocial donor evaluation by professionals and the additional value of donor self-report measures in optimising the psychosocial evaluation. Consequently, systematic screening of donors based on the most prominent risk factors provide ground for tailored interventions for donors at risk.

Psychological Well-Being of Living Kidney Donors and Recipients

OBJECTIVES

Previous research has indicated that kidney transplantation is associated with longer and better quality of life and can also have psychological impacts to both recipients and living donors. This study aimed to examine the psychological well-being of kidney transplant recipients and living donors in the first Ethiopian kidney transplant program using a psychological well-being framework developed by Ryff.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 82 kidney recipients and living donors who underwent medical screening for transplantation or living donation at the St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical Transplant Center between the establishment of the Center (September 2015)and the data collection end date (December 2018) were selected using medical records. Seventyfive recipients and 64 donors participated in the study. This study used a cross-sectional study design. Demographic questionnaires and Ryff's 84-item psychological well-being assessment were used. Collected data were analyzed through frequency, percentages, means, t tests, and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Approximately 83% of study recipients scored in the upper 3 quartiles for composite psychological well-being scores, and 50% of study donors scored in the middle 2 quartiles for composite psychological well-being scores, with roughly 20% in the highest quartile. We found no significant mean difference between recipient and donor subscales, excluding the Personal Growth Subscale, which showed a significant mean difference between recipients (mean [SD] of 69.01[8.39]) and donors (mean [SD] of 65.89 [8.84]). This study revealed no significant psychological mean differences between kidney recipients and donors regarding the demographic characteristics of sex, age, marital status, and education.

CONCLUSIONS

Our single-center study cohort of kidney transplant recipients and living donors revealed overall psychological well-being scores similar to established transplant centers in other countries. Psychological well-being subscore data can provide meaningful information about the experiences of recipients and donors.

Pain expectancy, prevalence, severity, and patterns following donor nephrectomy: Findings from the KDOC Study

Postoperative pain is an outcome of importance to potential living kidney donors (LKDs). We prospectively characterized the prevalence, severity, and patterns of acute or chronic postoperative pain in 193 LKDs at six transplant programs. Three pain measurements were obtained from donors on postoperative Day (POD) 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 41, 49, and 56. The median pain rating total was highest on POD1 and declined from each assessment to the next until reaching a median pain-free score of 0 on POD49. In generalized linear mixed-model analysis, the mean pain score decreased at each pain assessment compared to the POD3 assessment. Pre-donation history of mood disorder (adjusted ratio of means [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.40 [0.99, 1.98]), reporting "severe" on any POD1 pain descriptors (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 1.47 [1.12, 1.93]) and open nephrectomy (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 2.61 [1.03, 6.62]) were associated with higher pain scores across time. Of the 179 LKDs who completed the final pain assessment, 74 (41%) met criteria for chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), that is, any donation-related pain on POD56. Study findings have potential implications for LKD education, surgical consent, postdonation care, and outcome measurements.

An Explore Transplant Group Randomized Controlled Education Trial to Increase Dialysis Patients' Decision-Making and Pursuit of Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Dialysis centers must provide transplant education to patients but often do not address the risks and benefits of living and deceased donor transplant.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In a group randomized controlled trial of 20 dialysis centers and 253 patients, we assessed whether the Explore Transplant education program increased patients' readiness to pursue transplant, transplant knowledge, informed transplant decision-making, discussions about transplant with potential living donors, pursuit and receipt of living or deceased donor transplant, and whether these effects varied by race.

METHODS

Patients at participating dialysis centers were randomized to receive either (1) a 4-module Explore Transplant education program, including videos, printed materials, and transplant educator discussions or (2) standard-of-care transplant education provided by dialysis centers. The trial had 3 phases: (1) pre- and postsurveying and dialysis center education (2007-2008), (2) follow-up to determine whether patients restarted or began transplant evaluation (2008-2010), and (3) assessment of participants' receipt of a renal transplant (2012-2015).

RESULTS

Compared to patients in standard-of-care dialysis centers, patients who received the intervention were more likely to increase in their stage of readiness for living donor transplantation (odds ratio: 2.50; 95% confidence interval: 1.10-5.66), had greater increases in their transplant knowledge ( P < .001), and were more likely to call to restart/begin transplant evaluation (38% vs 24%, P = .006). When analyses were stratified by race, black patients were more likely to take several steps toward transplant in comparison to whites.

DISCUSSION

The Explore Transplant helps dialysis patients make informed decisions and increases their pursuit of transplant, particularly among black patients.

Assessing Living Donor Priorities Through Nominal Group Technique

The need for kidneys for transplantation continues to far surpass the number of donors. Although studies have shown that most people are aware of and support the idea of living donation, it remains unclear what motivates individuals who are aware, knowledgeable, and in support of donation to actually donate, or conversely, what deters them from donating. Utilizing nominal group technique, 30 individuals participated in 4 groups in which they brainstormed factors that would impact willingness to be a living donor and voted on which factors they deemed most important. Responses were analyzed and categorized into themes. Factors that influence the donation decision, from most to least important as rated by participants, were altruism, relationship to recipient, knowledge, personal risk/impact, convenience/access, cost, support, personal benefit, and religion. Participants reported a significant lack of information about donation as well as lack of knowledge about where and how to obtain information that would motivate them to donate or help make the decision to donate. Findings suggest that public campaign efforts seeking to increase rates of living donation should appeal to altruism and increase knowledge about the impact (or lack thereof) of donation on lifestyle factors and future health, and transplant programs should aim to maximize convenience and minimize donor burden. Future research should examine whether tailoring public campaigns to address factors perceived as most salient by potential donors reduces the significant gap in supply of and demand for kidneys.

Pre-donation cognitions of potential living organ donors: the development of the Donation Cognition Instrument in potential kidney donors

Background

Cognitions surrounding living organ donation, including the motivation to donate, expectations of donation and worries about donation, are relevant themes during living donor evaluation. However, there is no reliable psychometric instrument assessing all these different cognitions. This study developed and validated a questionnaire to assess pre-donation motivations, expectations and worries regarding donation, entitled the Donation Cognition Instrument (DCI).

Methods

Psychometric properties of the DCI were examined using exploratory factor analysis for scale structure and associations with validated questionnaires for construct validity assessment.

Results

From seven Dutch transplantation centres, 719 potential living kidney donors were included. The DCI distinguishes cognitions about donor benefits, recipient benefits, idealistic incentives, gratitude and worries about donation (Cronbach's alpha 0.76-0.81). Scores on pre-donation cognitions differed with regard to gender, age, marital status, religion and donation type. With regard to construct validity, the DCI was moderately correlated with expectations regarding donor's personal well-being and slightly to moderately to health-related quality of life.

Conclusions

The DCI is found to be a reliable instrument assessing cognitions surrounding living organ donation, which might add to pre-donation quality of life measures in facilitating psychosocial donor evaluation by healthcare professionals.

The ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT): from 'what' to 'how' of psychosocial screening - a pilot study

Thorough psychosocial screening of donor candidates is required in order to minimize potential negative consequences and to strive for optimal safety within living donation programmes. We aimed to develop an evidence-based tool to standardize the psychosocial screening process. Key concepts of psychosocial screening were used to structure our tool: motivation and decision-making, personal resources, psychopathology, social resources, ethical and legal factors and information and risk processing. We (i) discussed how each item per concept could be measured, (ii) reviewed and rated available validated tools, (iii) where necessary developed new items, (iv) assessed content validity and (v) pilot-tested the new items. The resulting ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT) consists of a selection of validated questionnaires (28 items in total), a semi-structured interview (43 questions) and a Red Flag Checklist. We outline optimal procedures and conditions for implementing this tool. The EPAT and user manual are available from the authors. Use of this tool will standardize the psychosocial screening procedure ensuring that no psychosocial issues are overlooked and ensure that comparable selection criteria are used and facilitate generation of comparable psychosocial data on living donor candidates.

Donors in chains: psychosocial outcomes of kidney donors in paired exchange

BACKGROUND

Kidney paired donation chains are initiated by nondirected donors and propagated by donors within the chain of transplants, or chain donors.

OBJECTIVE

To compare psychosocial and functional outcomes, and to test coercion, of chain donors in paired exchange versus traditional directed donors who have an established relationship with the recipient.

METHODS

Thirty chain donors from a transplant center who were part of the National Kidney Registry paired exchange program were compared with 34 traditional donors who donated around the same time. Participants completed online surveys: the postdonation section of the Living Donor Expectancies Questionnaire was used to assess psychosocial and functional outcomes 1 to 6 years after donation. A survey to assess coercion was used as well.

RESULTS

Chain donors and traditional donors were similar in terms of sex, race, age, and time after donation. The 2 groups had similar altruistic motives in donating their kidney, and both types of donors mentioned psychological benefits. No differences were found on questions regarding psychosocial outcomes save for the "quid pro quo scale" (P= .01), which suggested that the traditional donors felt more that the recipients are indebted to them. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in the coercion measure. Pressure to donate and stress of donation were not greater in chain donors than traditional donors (P= .60).

CONCLUSION

Kidney donors in kidney paired donation chains do as well as traditional donors psychosocially without any increased tendency toward experiencing coercion.

Donors and recipients of living kidney donation: a qualitative metasummary of their experiences

With the notable growth in the qualitative investigation of living kidney donation, there is value in aggregating results from this body of research to learn from accumulated experience. The present paper aims to draw a complete portrait of living donors' and recipients' experience of donation by metasummarizing published studies. We found that donors' experience, particularly the decision-making process, has been more extensively studied than the recipients' perspective. Donors differ in their initial level of motivation to donate but on the whole report positive experiences and personal benefits. They also identify difficult periods and the need for additional resources. Recipients report an often positive but more ambivalent reaction to donation. In terms of relational issues between dyads, while the topic remains understudied, the donor-recipient relationship and gift reciprocity have received the most attention. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for future practice and research.

Altruistic kidney donation to a stranger: psychosocial and functional outcomes at two US transplant centers

BACKGROUND

The number of living kidney donors with no preexisting relationship to the recipient has increased sharply. This study compared the psychosocial and functional outcomes of these altruistic donors to a stranger (ADs) with donors with a longstanding relationship with the recipient (traditional donors [TDs]).

METHODS

ADs (n=39) and TDs (n=52), who were similar on age, sex, and year of donation, were recruited from two transplant programs in the United States. Participants completed validated measures of psychosocial and functional outcomes a median of 5 years after donation (range, 1-12 years).

RESULTS

ADs and TDs did not differ significantly in the total number of donation motives. Both were motivated by a desire to help, the benefits to the recipient outweighing the risks to the donor, a sense of moral duty, and imagining oneself in the position of the recipient. Psychological benefits were endorsed equally by both types of donors, although TDs reported higher Quid Pro Quo scores relative to ADs (P=0.04). ADs and TDs did not differ significantly on any of the Short Form-36, Version 2 scales (P values ranged from 0.19 to 0.85). Few donors (3 ADs and 1 TD) regretted their donation decision.

CONCLUSION

Overall, findings indicate that carefully screened ADs experience psychosocial and functional outcomes comparable with those of TDs and should not be systematically excluded from the opportunity to donate.