Psychological Factors Influencing Donors' Decision-Making Pattern in Living-Donor Liver Transplantation

Anxiety, pain intensity, and decision regret of living liver donors during postoperative period

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore and examine the relationship between anxiety, acute pain intensity, and decision regret of living liver donors in the postoperative stage.

METHODS

This is a prospective correlational study. Data were collected consecutively for one year (from September 2017 to September 2018) at a medical center in northern Taiwan. Information about anxiety and acute pain intensity was collected preoperatively and on postoperative day (POD) 3 and POD 7. Satisfaction with pain management and decision regret was inquired about on POD 7.

RESULTS

Data of 57 consecutive living liver donors (56.1 % male, mean age 34.12 ± 9.92 years) were analyzed. Living liver donors experienced moderate anxiety and acute pain levels in the postoperative period. The mean score of decision regret was 12.63 (range 0-60), indicating a low level of regret. The acute pain intensity decreased significantly between POD 3 and POD 7 (p < .001); however, the anxiety level slightly increased (p = .031). Older and married living liver donors had higher anxiety levels. The satisfaction level of pain management was negatively correlated with the POD 7 acute pain intensity (r = -0.26, p = .049) and decision regret (r = -0.37, p = .005), but it was positively correlated with POD 7 anxiety (r = 0.38, p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative period was hard for living liver donors as they would experience moderate acute pain and anxiety. Although the decision regret was low, the satisfaction level of pain management would negatively affect it. Therefore, the effectiveness of pain management and anxiety management should be continually ensured in the postoperative period.

Understanding family dynamics in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation decision-making in Taiwan: Motivation, communication, and ambivalence

This study investigated how multiple family members co-construct the ethical significance of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and how the family structure and dynamics of donor-recipient-caregiver relationships shape the communication and decision-making process within the sociocultural context of Taiwan. We conducted in-depth interviews with 36 participants from 13 families at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from February to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and translated from Mandarin to English and analyzed utilizing grounded theory and thematic analysis. Our findings revealed that LDLT in Taiwan is not merely a personal choice of either donor or recipient but essentially a collaborative process of family-centered medical decision-making, intertwined with socioeconomic conditions, cultural and social norms, gender roles, and the division of labor in the household. The notion of reciprocity and indebtedness for family members is a central theme underlying the entire process of motivation, deliberation, and decision-making, thereby reinforcing the naturalness of LDLT. However, our study highlighted that donors from families with traditional gender hierarchy and power imbalance may experience psychological and social vulnerabilities. Conclusively, we suggest that healthcare professionals should be sensitive to the contextual and relational factors involved in family dynamics and provide appropriate support to the ambivalent donors.

Psychosocial Assessment of Donors in Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the only way to save children with end-stage liver disease. The donor for liver transplantation (LT) may have a complicated psychosocial condition.

PURPOSE

This review aims to identify the domains of the donor psychosocial questions that should be addressed and summarize the aspects and tools future psychosocial assessments should include.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for the terms pediatric, liver transplantation, donor, and psychosocial. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool to appraise reporting quality. Two researchers independently selected the papers and performed data extraction and quality appraisal.

RESULTS

The articles included in this review contain 26 quantitative studies and 2 qualitative studies. The study quality was moderate to high. Donors have ambivalence, anxiety, the need for family and social support, the need for adequate information, distress, and low self-esteem during the preoperative period. In the postoperative period they have poor psychological condition, panic disorder, conversion disorder and substance use/abuse disorder, abnormal family functioning, better psychosocial outcome, or among others. The assessment methods consisted of the questionnaire survey and semi-structured interview. Among the 28 studies, 17 different psychosocial domains were mentioned. The most frequently referred to was family and social support.

CONCLUSION

The contents of the psychosocial assessment must include anxiety or depression, family and social support, ambivalence, information, and positive psychosocial characteristics. Assessment methods should use the questionnaire survey and semi-structured interview. According to this review, future research can develop a specific psychosocial assessment tool for pediatric LT donors.

Psychosocial Issues Related to Donor's Decision-Making in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the detailed motives, concerns, and psychological defensiveness of living liver donor candidates in a Korean population.

Material/Methods

We analyzed data of 102 donor candidates obtained from routine psychosocial evaluation for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using descriptive methods. Donor candidates completed 2 questionnaires regarding their motivations and concerns, as well as a validity scale, the K scale from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2.

Results

Donor candidates were more likely to cite family-related issues (77.5% to 94.1%) including well-being of the whole family and family affection as the reasons for their liver donation rather than personal motives (38.2% to 57.8%). Donors were also more likely to concern about the recipient’s survival and recovery (52.9% to 58.8%) rather than their own difficulties such as surgical complications and occupational disadvantages (19.6% to 38.2%). Twenty-six donors (25.5%) took a psychologically defensive attitude (T-score of K scale ≥65) during the pre-donation evaluation. Psychologically defensive donors expressed a significantly lower level of concern about liver donation compared to non-defensive donors (P<0.01).

Conclusions

We need to pay more attention to the family-related issues and psychological defensiveness of living liver donor candidates when evaluating psychosocial status before LDLT.

Psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates: An observational study

Living donor liver transplantation has advantages over deceased organ liver transplantation. However, the living liver donor candidates must be carefully assessed before surgery. Candidates may be excluded for various reasons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates according to the reason for exclusion.A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted. Donor candidates were invited to participate if they were at least 20 years of age, related biologically or by marriage to the recipient (within 5 degrees), and had undergone living donor evaluation. Among the 338 participants recruited from August 2013 to December 2015, 116 were excluded for the following reasons: a medical condition (n = 35), failure to be chosen (n = 63), or withdrawal from the selection process (n = 18). The psychological profiles of these 3 exclusion groups were evaluated.There were no significant group differences in age, sex, education level, religion, marital status, and consanguinity (P > .05). The withdrawal group had fewer recipients with an hepatitis B virus infection than did the other groups (χ = 9.28, P = .01). Additionally, compared with the unchosen group, the withdrawal group had lower intimacy with the recipient (F = 5.32, P = .006) and higher ambivalence (F = 5.53, P = .005). In terms of family relationship parameters, the withdrawal group had lower family cohesion than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 4.44, P = .01), lower family expressiveness than the medical condition group (F = 3.76, P = .03), and higher family conflict than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 7.05, P = .001). The withdrawal group also had lower emotional social support than the medical condition group (F = 3.55, P = .03). There were no significant group difference in motivation, expectations, donation-related concerns, informational social support, value social support, instrumental social support, and health-related quality of life.The living donor candidates who withdrew from the selection process had obvious ambivalence, poorer family relationships, and insufficient emotional social support. The transplantation team should respect the autonomy of the candidate's decision and mitigate the impact of the donation decision on living liver donor candidates.

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

Background

The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.

Methods

This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.

Results

The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20–47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0–7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.

Conclusion

Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.

Evaluation of donor workups and exclusions in a single-center experience of living donor liver transplantation

The process of evaluating potential donors in liver transplantation is important to ensure donor safety and provide optimal recipient outcomes. However, there has been no report about donor exclusion rates and reasons for such exclusion in Korea. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the outcomes of potential living liver donor evaluation in a major living donor liver transplantation center. From July 2011 to June 2015, prospectively collected data of 726 potential donors for 588 matched recipients were subsequently evaluated. Among 726 potential donors, 374 potential donors (51.5%) finally reached donation; 352 potential donors (48.5%) were excluded for various reasons. Donor reasons were 29.8%, including medical problems, withdrawal of consent, graft volume issues, and identification of a better suitable donor. Recipient reasons were 20.7%, including recipient death or recovery, allocation to deceased donor, and progressions of hepatocellular carcinoma. A total of 38 (5.2%) potential donors had a fatty liver. Among them, 15 (39.5%) potential donors tried short-term weight reduction and eventually were able to donate. In conclusion, the main reasons for donor exclusion were medical problems and withdrawal of consent. Therefore, thorough medical screening and careful examination for donor voluntarism are important in the donor evaluation process. Liver Transplantation 23 614-624 2017 AASLD.

Influence of the Preoperative Decision-Making Process on the Postoperative Outcome after Hysterectomy for Benign Uterine Pathologies

Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess whether the preoperative decision-making process might influence treatment success in premenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies Materials and Methods: All premenopausal women treated with hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies between April 2011 and June 2013 at a tertiary university center were enrolled in this prospective observational cohort study. Five parameters of the preoperative decision-making process were assessed upon their correlation with postoperative quality of life, sexual function and patients' satisfaction. These outcome measures were assessed for the pre- and postoperative (six months after surgery) status using two validated questionnaires (EQ-5D and "female sexual function index" (FSFI). Patients' satisfaction with the postoperative outcome was assessed with a self-developed questionnaire. Results: 255 of 402 (63 %) patients completed the study. A correlation between the co-variables "interval between first counseling and decision to surgery", "subjectively perceived quality of the preoperative counseling" and "certainty in the decision for the intervention" and postoperative outcomes were found. The co-variables "person mainly responsible for election of hysterectomy mode" and "discussion of decision for surgery with others" showed no influence on postoperative patients-reported outcomes. Conclusion: We found a correlation between certain parameters of the preoperative decision-making process and postoperative patient-reported sexual function, quality of life and patients' satisfaction in premenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies. An optimization of these factors could contribute to an improvement in treatment outcomes.

Practices for Supporting and Confirming Decision-Making Involved in Kidney and Liver Donation by Related Living Donors in Japan: A Nationwide Survey

This nationwide survey investigated the actual practices for supporting and confirming the decision-making involved in related living-organ donations in Japan, focusing on organ type and program size differences. Answers to a questionnaire survey were collected from 89 of the 126 (71%) kidney and 30 of the 35 (86%) liver transplantation programs in Japan that were involved in living-donor transplantations in 2013. In 70% of the kidney and 90% of the liver transplantation programs, all donors underwent "third-party" interviews to confirm their voluntariness. The most common third parties were psychiatrists (90% and 83%, respectively). Many programs engaged in practices to support decision-making by donor candidates, including guaranteeing the right to withdraw consent to donate (70% and 100%, respectively) and prescribing a set "cooling-off period" (88% and 100%, respectively). Most donors were offered care by mental health specialists (86% and 93%, respectively). Third parties were designated by more of the larger kidney transplant programs compared with the smaller programs. In conclusion, the actual practices supporting and confirming the decision to donate a living organ varied depending on the organ concerned and the number of patients in the program.

Reclaiming their lives: the decision-making process in living liver donation--an interpretative phenomenological case study analysis of one couple

OBJECTIVES

Adult-to-adult living liver donation (LLD) is a controversial procedure due to the risk to the healthy donor. The decision to proceed with LLD is an important, yet under-researched area. This study aims to explore the decision-making process of the donor and recipient independently, and within the donor-recipient dyad.

DESIGN

A longitudinal, qualitative analysis of the LLD decision from the perspective of a LLD donor-recipient dyad.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with the donor and recipient separately on three occasions: pre LLD, six weeks post and six months post LLD. Transcripts were subject to interpretative phenomenological analysis.

RESULTS

During the pre-LLD interviews, a series of intra- and interpersonal negotiations were reported as both the donor and recipient grappled to make a decision about LLD. Following the decision, the focus then centred on the consequences of the decision and making sense of unanticipated outcomes. By six months post LLD, both were able to reflect on adapting to the changes their decision had ultimately caused.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study offers a unique insight into the risk assessment and decision-making demands of LLD and the results can help support future LLD candidates.