Clinicians' attitudes and approaches to evaluating the potential living kidney donor-recipient relationship: An interview study

Characteristics of Potential and Actual Living Kidney Donors: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

There are limited data and no national capture of barriers associated with initiating and completing the donation process for potential living kidney donors (LKDs).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3001 intake forms completed by prospective LKDs from 2016 to 2019 at a single transplant center. We analyzed data from all potential donors who completed the intake until they became ineligible or withdrew or donation was complete. We used univariate and multivariate models to evaluate independent factors associated with donation at various stages in the donation process.

RESULTS

The donation process was deconstructed into 5 steps: intake form, immunologic compatibility testing, clinic evaluation, selection committee review, and donation. The highest percentage of potential donors dropped out after completing the intake form, primarily because of not responding to the follow-up phone call (22.6%). Of 455 potential LKDs that completed immunologic compatibility testing, 36% were ABO or crossmatch incompatible. One-hundred eighty-eight (7.5%) of all LKD applicants reached donation, the majority of whom were White (91.0%) and female (63.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of LKD applicants make it to donation. Our ability to track all potential LKDs from the initial touch point to the transplant center will help us develop interventions to address barriers to a successful donation.

Psychosocial and Ethical Behaviors and Attitudes of Health Care Professionals in the Clinical Setting of Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

There are several psychosocial and ethical issues surrounding the decision making of living kidney transplant donors. This study aimed to determine what health care professionals (HPs) consider in their clinical practice and their attitudes toward donors' decision-making processes.

METHODS

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 HPs. A thematic analysis was performed to categorize the thematic elements of the transcripts. All procedures were approved by the relevant review board and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

RESULTS

Six main categories-maintaining family relationships, improving donor understanding, supporting voluntary decision making, setting the environment for the examination, having different attitudes toward the donor's intentions, and resisting confirmation of intent-were identified. The HPs provided diverse considerations to respect the donors' autonomy.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, there is a lack of practical methods to confirm living donors' levels of understanding and spontaneity, suggesting that these methods need to be established. Factors related to family functioning may reflect the unique culture of Japan, and this may be indicative of the need to consider treatment based on cultural values.

Global Kidney Exchange: opportunity or exploitation? An ELPAT/ESOT appraisal

This paper addresses ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects of Global Kidney Exchange (GKE). Concerns have been raised that GKE violates the nonpayment principle, exploits donors in low- and middle-income countries, and detracts from the aim of self-sufficiency. We review the arguments for and against GKE. We argue that while some concerns about GKE are justified based on the available evidence, others are speculative and do not apply exclusively to GKE but to living donation more generally. We posit that concerns can be mitigated by implementing safeguards, by developing minimum quality criteria and by establishing an international committee that independently monitors and evaluates GKE's procedures and outcomes. Several questions remain however that warrant further clarification. What are the experiences and views of recipients and donors participating in GKE? Who manages the escrow funds that have been put in place for donor and recipients? What procedures and safeguards have been put in place to prevent corruption of these funds? What are the inclusion criteria for participating GKE centers? GKE provides opportunity to promote access to donation and transplantation but can only be conducted with the appropriate safeguards. Patients' and donors' voices are missing in this debate.

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor-recipient pairs before the transplant and 11-14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).

CONCLUSIONS

Donor-recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.

Physician Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation

Background:

Compared to dialysis, living kidney donation has a greater chance of restoring health and is associated with better outcomes than deceased kidney donation. Although physicians advocate for this treatment, it is uncertain how they would act as potential living kidney donors or recipients.

Methods:

We surveyed 104 physicians, pediatric, and internal medicine nephrologists, to ascertain their attitudes toward living donation.

Results:

Among surveyed nephrologists, there was nearly universal support for living kidney donation as a viable medical option, and nearly all of them would support a healthy and medically cleared patient who wishes to participate. Although support was still strong, nephrologists were significantly less likely to support their friends and relatives participating in living kidney donation, and their support declined further for friends and relatives donating to nonrelatives.

Conclusion:

Our findings suggest the need to more deeply examine physician-perceived risks involved in serving as a living kidney donor. Based on differences in surveyed nephrologist attitudes regarding donation to and from loved ones versus nonrelatives, we suggest that physicians should give careful consideration to how they describe the risks of living donation to potential donors.