A Clustered Randomized Trial of an Educational Intervention During Transplant Evaluation to Increase Knowledge of Living Donor Kidney Transplant

Neighborhood Segregation and Access to Live Donor Kidney Transplantation

Importance

Identifying the mechanisms of structural racism, such as racial and ethnic segregation, is a crucial first step in addressing the persistent disparities in access to live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

Objective

To assess whether segregation at the candidate's residential neighborhood and transplant center neighborhood is associated with access to LDKT.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study spanning January 1995 to December 2021, participants included non-Hispanic Black or White adult candidates for first-time LDKT reported in the US national transplant registry. The median (IQR) follow-up time for each participant was 1.9 (0.6-3.0) years.

Main Outcome and Measures

Segregation, measured using the Theil H method to calculate segregation tertiles in zip code tabulation areas based on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates, reflects the heterogeneity in neighborhood racial and ethnic composition. To quantify the likelihood of LDKT by neighborhood segregation, cause-specific hazard models were adjusted for individual-level and neighborhood-level factors and included an interaction between segregation tertiles and race.

Results

Among 162 587 candidates for kidney transplant, the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (13.2) years, 65 141 (40.1%) were female, 80 023 (49.2%) were Black, and 82 564 (50.8%) were White. Among Black candidates, living in a high-segregation neighborhood was associated with 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.97]) lower access to LDKT relative to residence in low-segregation neighborhoods; no such association was observed among White candidates (P for interaction = .01). Both Black candidates (AHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-1.00]) and White candidates (AHR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]) listed at transplant centers in high-segregation neighborhoods had lower access to LDKT relative to their counterparts listed at centers in low-segregation neighborhoods (P for interaction = .64). Within high-segregation transplant center neighborhoods, candidates listed at predominantly minority neighborhoods had 17% lower access to LDKT relative to candidates listed at predominantly White neighborhoods (AHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]). Black candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers in predominantly minority neighborhoods had significantly lower likelihood of LDKT relative to White candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers located in predominantly White neighborhoods (65% and 64%, respectively).

Conclusions

Segregated residential and transplant center neighborhoods likely serve as a mechanism of structural racism, contributing to persistent racial disparities in access to LDKT. To promote equitable access, studies should assess targeted interventions (eg, community outreach clinics) to improve support for potential candidates and donors and ultimately mitigate the effects of segregation.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Knowledge About Renal Transplantation Among African, Caribbean, and Black Canadian Patients With Advanced Kidney Failure

Introduction

Variable transplant-related knowledge may contribute to inequitable access to living donor kidney transplant (LDKT). We compared transplant-related knowledge between African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) versus White Canadian patients with kidney failure using the Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation (KART) questionnaire.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional cohort study. Data were collected from a cross-sectional convenience sample of adults with kidney failure in Toronto. Participants also answered an exploratory question about their distrust in the kidney allocation system. Clinical characteristics were abstracted from medical records. The potential contribution of distrust to differences in transplant knowledge was assessed in mediation analysis.

Results

Among 577 participants (mean [SD] age 57 [14] years, 63% male), 25% were ACB, and 43% were White Canadians. 45% of ACB versus 26% of White participants scored in the lowest tertile of the KART score. The relative risk ratio to be in the lowest tertile for ACB compared to White participants was 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11, 4.43) after multivariable adjustment. About half of the difference in the knowledge score between ACB versus White patients was mediated by distrust in the kidney allocation system.

Conclusion

Participants with kidney failure from ACB communities have less transplant-related knowledge compared to White participants. Distrust is potentially contributing to this difference.

Do patient decision aids help people who are facing decisions about solid organ transplantation? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Decisions about solid organ transplantation are complex. Patient decision aids (PDAs) enhance traditional education, by improving knowledge and supporting patients to align their values with treatments. There are increasing numbers of transplantation PDAs, however, it is unclear whether these are effective. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of PDA use in transplantation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from database inception to October 26, 2020. We included primary studies of solid organ transplantation PDAs defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. All comparators and reported outcomes were included. Mean difference in knowledge (before vs. after) was standardized on a 100-point scale. Pooled-effect for PDAs was calculated and compared to the standard of care for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyzed using random effects. Analysis of all other outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity (PROSPERO registration, CRD42020215940).

RESULTS

Seven thousand four hundred and sixty-three studies were screened, 163 underwent full-text review, and 15 studies with 4278 participants were included. Nine studies were RCTs. Seven RCTs assessed knowledge; all demonstrated increased knowledge with PDA use (mean difference, 8.01;95%CI 4.69-11.34, p < .00001). There were many other outcomes, including behavior and acceptability, but these were too heterogenous and infrequently assessed for meaningful synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that PDAs increase knowledge compared to standard education, though the effect size is small. PDAs are mostly considered acceptable; however, it is difficult to determine whether they improve other decision-making components due to the limited evidence about non-knowledge-based outcomes.

Interventions for improving health literacy in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Low health literacy affects 25% of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with increased morbidity and death. Improving health literacy is a recognised priority, but effective interventions are not clear.

OBJECTIVES

This review looked the benefits and harms of interventions for improving health literacy in people with CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 July 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for non-randomised studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies that assessed interventions aimed at improving health literacy in people with CKD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed risk of bias analysis. We classified studies as either interventions aimed at improving aspects of health literacy or interventions targeting a population of people with poor health literacy. The interventions were further sub-classified in terms of the type of intervention (educational, self-management training, or educational with self-management training). Results were expressed as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 120 studies (21,149 participants) which aimed to improve health literacy. There were 107 RCTs and 13 non-randomised studies. No studies targeted low literacy populations. For the RCTs, selection bias was low or unclear in 94% of studies, performance bias was high in 86% of studies, detection bias was high in 86% of studies reporting subjective outcomes and low in 93% of studies reporting objective outcomes. Attrition and other biases were low or unclear in 86% and 78% of studies, respectively. Compared to usual care, low certainty evidence showed educational interventions may increase kidney-related knowledge (14 RCTs, 2632 participants: SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32; I² = 94%). Data for self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life (QoL), death, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and hospitalisations could not be pooled or was not reported. Compared to usual care, low-certainty evidence showed self-management interventions may improve self-efficacy (5 RCTs, 417 participants: SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.03; I² = 74%) and QoL physical component score (3 RCTs, 131 participants: MD 4.02, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.94; I² = 0%). There was moderate-certainty evidence that self-management interventions probably did not slow the decline in eGFR after one year (3 RCTs, 855 participants: MD 1.53 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -1.41 to 4.46; I² = 33%). Data for knowledge, self-care behaviour, death and hospitalisations could not be pooled or was not reported. Compared to usual care, low-certainty evidence showed educational with self-management interventions may increase knowledge (15 RCTs, 2185 participants: SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93; I² = 90%), improve self-care behaviour scores (4 RCTs, 913 participants: SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.82; I² =97%), self-efficacy (8 RCTs, 687 participants: SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89; I² = 82%), improve QoL physical component score (3 RCTs, 2771 participants: MD 2.56, 95% CI 1.73 to 3.38; I² = 0%) and may make little or no difference to slowing the decline of eGFR (4 RCTs, 618 participants: MD 4.28 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -0.03 to 8.85; I² = 43%). Moderate-certainty evidence shows educational with self-management interventions probably decreases the risk of death (any cause) (4 RCTs, 2801 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; I² = 0%). Data for hospitalisation could not be pooled.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve aspects of health literacy are a very broad category, including educational interventions, self-management interventions and educational with self-management interventions. Overall, this type of health literacy intervention is probably beneficial in this cohort however, due to methodological limitations and high heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, the evidence is of low certainty.

Pretransplant Patient Education in Solid-organ Transplant: A Narrative Review

Education for pretransplant, solid-organ recipient candidates aims to improve knowledge and understanding about the transplant process, outcomes, and potential complications to support informed, shared decision-making to reduce fears and anxieties about transplant, inform expectations, and facilitate adjustment to posttransplant life. In this review, we summarize novel pretransplant initiatives and approaches to educate solid-organ transplant recipient candidates. First, we review approaches that may be common to all solid-organ transplants, then we summarize interventions specific to kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplant. We describe evidence that emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary approaches to transplant education. We also summarize initiatives that consider online (eHealth) and mobile (mHealth) solutions. Finally, we highlight education initiatives that support racialized or otherwise marginalized communities to improve equitable access to solid-organ transplant. A considerable amount of work has been done in solid-organ transplant since the early 2000s with promising results. However, many studies on education for pretransplant recipient candidates involve relatively small samples and nonrandomized designs and focus on short-term surrogate outcomes. Overall, many of these studies have a high risk of bias. Frequently, interventions assessed are not well characterized or they are combined with administrative and data-driven initiatives into multifaceted interventions, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of the education component on outcomes. In the future, well-designed studies rigorously assessing well-defined surrogate and clinical outcomes will be needed to evaluate the impact of many promising initiatives.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States

Background

Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes.

Results

Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant.

Conclusions

This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-021-01616-x.

Effectiveness of a culturally competent care intervention in reducing disparities in Hispanic live donor kidney transplantation: A hybrid trial

Hispanic patients receive disproportionately fewer living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs). The Northwestern Medicine Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP), designed to increase Hispanic LDKTs, was evaluated as a nonrandomized, implementation-effectiveness hybrid trial of patients initiating transplant evaluation at two intervention and two similar control sites. Using a mixed method, observational design, we evaluated the fidelity of the HKTP implementation at the two intervention sites. We tested the impact of the HKTP intervention by evaluating the likelihood of receiving LDKT comparing pre-intervention (January 2011-December 2016) and postintervention (January 2017-March 2020), across ethnicity and centers. The HKTP study included 2063 recipients. Intervention Site A exhibited greater implementation fidelity than intervention Site B. For Hispanic recipients at Site A, the likelihood of receiving LDKTs was significantly higher at postintervention compared with pre-intervention (odds ratio [OR] = 3.17 95% confidence interval [1.04, 9.63]), but not at the paired control Site C (OR = 1.02 [0.61, 1.71]). For Hispanic recipients at Site B, the likelihood of receiving an LDKT did not differ between pre- and postintervention (OR = 0.88 [0.40, 1.94]). The LDKT rate was significantly lower for Hispanics at paired control Site D (OR = 0.45 [0.28, 0.90]). The intervention significantly improved LDKT rates for Hispanic patients at the intervention site that implemented the intervention with greater fidelity. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registered (retrospectively) on September 7, 2017 (NCT03276390).

Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Renal Transplantation in Individuals Undergoing Transplant Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The underutilization of kidney transplant as the preferred treatment for end-stage kidney disease is influenced by a lack of knowledge, poor attitudes, and various socio-demographic characteristics. Negative attitudes toward renal transplant disengage patients from the evaluation process and often hinder their likelihood of receiving a transplant.

PURPOSE

Determine whether a standardized educational session successfully improves knowledge and attitudes toward kidney transplant. Explore which socio-demographic variables are associated with more negative baseline attitude scores.

DESIGN

The program evaluation utilized a pre-test/post-test design to assess attitudes and knowledge toward renal transplant before and after an educational session. The pre- and post-surveys were distributed to a convenience sample of 341 and 115 patients, respectively, between the months of September and December 2019.

RESULTS

Exposure to a kidney transplant education program resulted in greater levels of knowledge (P = 0.019, d = 0.334). Individuals with no college education were found to have more negative baseline attitudes toward renal transplantation (P = 0.048, d = 0.382).

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to explore how knowledge, attitudes, and certain socio-demographic characteristics impact a patient's intention to pursue kidney transplant. Uncovering reasons as to why certain populations of individuals have more negative baseline attitudes toward kidney transplant may also provide clinicians and transplant programs with valuable information on how pre-transplant education can be tailored to meet the needs of specific populations.

Interventions for increasing solid organ donor registration

BACKGROUND

A solution for increasing the number of available organs for transplantation is to encourage more individuals to register a commitment for deceased organ donation. However, the percentage of the population registered for organ donation remains low in many countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of various interventions used to increase deceased organ donor registration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 11 August 2020 through contact with an Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs of interventions to promote deceased organ donor registration. We included studies if they measured self-reported or verified donor registration, intention to donate, intention to register a decision or number of individuals signing donor cards as outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed retrieved studies and extracted data from included studies. We assessed studies for risk of bias. We obtained summary estimates of effect using a random-effects model and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence intervals; CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD; 95% CI) or standardised mean difference (SMD; 95% CI) for continuous outcomes. In multi-arm trials, data were pooled to create single pair-wise comparisons. Analyses were stratified by specific intervention setting where available.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 46 studies (47 primary articles, including one abstract) comprising 24 parallel RCTs, 19 cluster RCTs and 3 quasi-RCTs. Sample sizes ranged from 138 to 1,085,292 (median = 514). A total of 16 studies measured registration behaviour, 27 measured intention to register/donate and three studies measured both registration behaviour and intention to register. Interventions were delivered in a variety of different settings: schools (14 studies), driver's motor vehicle (DMV) centres (5), mail-outs (4), primary care centres (3), workplaces (1), community settings (7) and general public (12). Interventions were highly varied in terms of their content and included strategies such as educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders, staff training, message framing, and priming. Most studies were rated as having high or unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment and low risk for the remainder of the domains. Data from 34/46 studies (74%) were available for meta-analysis. Low certainty evidence showed organ donation registration interventions had a small overall effect on improving registration behaviour (16 studies, 1,294,065 participants: RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.43, I2 = 84%), intention to register/donate (dichotomous) (10 studies, 10,838 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42, I2 = 91%) and intention to register/donate (continuous) (9 studies, 3572 participants: SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36, I2 = 67%). Classroom-based interventions delivered in a lecture format by individuals from the transplant community may be effective at increasing intention to register/donate (3 studies, 675 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55, I² = 0%). Community interventions targeting specific ethnic groups were generally effective at increasing registration rates (k = 5, n = 4186; RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.40, I² = 85%), although heterogeneity was high. In particular, interventions delivered in the community by trained peer-leaders appear to be effective (3 studies, 3819 participant: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.06, I² = 87%), although again, the data lacked robustness. There was some evidence that framing messages (e.g. anticipated regret) and priming individuals (e.g. reciprocity) in a certain way may increase intention to register/donate, however, few studies measured this effect on actual registration. Overall, the studies varied significantly in terms of design, setting, content and delivery. Selection bias was evident and a quarter of the studies could not be included in the meta-analysis due to incomplete outcome data reporting. No adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In our review, we identified a variety of approaches used to increase organ donor registration including school-based educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders in the community, DMV staff training, targeted messaging and priming. The variability in outcome measures used and incompleteness in reporting meant that most data could not be combined for analysis. When data were combined, overall effect sizes were small in favour of intervention groups over controls, however, there was significant variability in the data. There was some evidence that leveraging peer-leaders in the community to deliver organ donation education may improve registration rates and classroom-based education from credible individuals (i.e. members of the transplant community) may improve intention to register/donate, however, there is no clear evidence favouring any particular approach. There was mixed evidence for simple, low-intensity interventions utilising message framing and priming. However, it is likely that interest in these strategies will persist due to their reach and scalability. Further research is therefore required to adequately address the question of the most effective interventions for increasing deceased organ donor registration.

Destination Transplant: Protocol for a Parallel-group Randomized Trial of an Educational Intervention to Increase Kidney Transplant Among Black People on the Transplant Waiting List

For most patients with kidney failure, living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is their best treatment option. Compared with White people, Black people are more likely to have kidney failure but less likely to receive LDKTs. In this study, the investigators will test an educational intervention, Destination Transplant, designed to reduce this disparity, among Black people already listed for kidney transplant.

Your Path to Transplant: A randomized controlled trial of a tailored expert system intervention to increase knowledge, attitudes, and pursuit of kidney transplant

Individually tailoring education over time may help more patients, especially racial/ethnic minorities, get waitlisted and pursue deceased and living donor kidney transplant (DDKT and LDKT, respectively). We enrolled 802 patients pursuing transplant evaluation at the University of California, Los Angeles Transplant Program into a randomized education trial. We compared the effectiveness of Your Path to Transplant (YPT), an individually tailored coaching and education program delivered at 4 time points, with standard of care (SOC) education on improving readiness to pursue DDKT and LDKT, transplant knowledge, taking 15 small transplant-related actions, and pursuing transplant (waitlisting or LDKT rates) over 8 months. Survey outcomes were collected prior to evaluation and at 4 and 8 months. Time to waitlisting or LDKT was assessed with at least 18 months of follow-up. At 8 months, compared to SOC, the YPT group demonstrated increased LDKT readiness (47% vs 33%, P = .003) and transplant knowledge (effect size [ES] = 0.41, P < .001). Transplant pursuit was higher in the YPT group (hazard ratio: 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.79, P = .002). A focused, coordinated education effort can improve transplant-seeking behaviors and waitlisting rates. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02181114.

Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplant: A Positive Stimulus in the Medical World

Kidneys are one of the essential organs of our body, with chronic kidney disease being a very prevalent and emotionally, mentally and physically straining condition affecting 1 in 15 people worldwide. The prevalence is further escalating with every passing year. It is slowly progressive in nature, and many times goes unnoticed until symptoms start manifesting and presenting themselves much later in life. In this article, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to diabetes mellitus and its effect on different organs is examined, along with the role of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPKT) in the management of this condition. Although proven to be an assured treatment with an outstanding allograft acceptance rate, the fact that it is still not widely adopted in many healthcare setups due to financial implications is also studied.

Online databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for the purpose of data collection; due to the very limited number of randomized controlled trials conducted on this given topic, a limited discussion was retrieved. By applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method and several inclusion/exclusion criteria, approximately 66 articles were assessed for eligibility based on the title and abstract. A total of 44 articles were shortlisted and considered in the final review.

Several systematic reviews that have been conducted in the past reveal the importance of SPKT at an early stage of diagnosis towards increasing longevity of the patient with freedom from multiple medications. Transplant is a cost-effective therapy when compared to the prolonged dependence on dialysis, insulin pens, and increased susceptibility to infections.

A greater number of specialists must also train to carry out SPKT and identify the early stages of ESRD, and medical centers should be encouraged to carry out transplant procedures effectively both financially and medically. This can be achieved through the development of global policy mechanisms and establishment of universally adoptable standards.

Associations of perceived information adequacy and knowledge with pursuit of live donor kidney transplants and living donor inquiries among African American transplant candidates

We studied associations between perceived adequacy of live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) information or knowledge with pursuit of LDKT or receipt of live donor inquiries among 300 African American kidney transplant candidates. Participants reported via questionnaire how informed or knowledgeable they felt regarding LDKT. Participants also reported their pursuit of LDKT, categorized as "low" (no discussion with family or friends about LDKT and no identified donor), "intermediate" (discussed LDKT with family but no identified donor) or "high" (discussed LDKT with family and identified a potential donor). We reviewed participants' electronic health records to identify potential donors' transplant center inquiries on participants' behalves. A minority of participants reported they felt "very" or "extremely" well informed about LDKT (39%) or had "a great deal" of LDKT knowledge (38%). Participants perceiving themselves as "very" or "extremely" (vs "not" or "slightly") well informed about LDKT had statistically significantly greater odds of intermediate or high (vs low) pursuit of LDKT (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.71 [1.02-7.17]). Perceived LDKT knowledge was not associated with pursuit of LDKT. Neither perceived information adequacy nor knowledge was associated with living donor inquiries. Efforts to better understand the role of education in the pursuit of LDKT among African American transplant candidates are needed.

Impact of Navigators on First Visit to a Transplant Center, Waitlisting, and Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many patients with ESKD face barriers in completing the steps required to obtain a transplant. These eight sequential steps are medical suitability, interest in transplant, referral to a transplant center, first visit to center, transplant workup, successful candidate, waiting list or identify living donor, and receive transplant. This study sought to determine the effect of navigators on helping patients complete these steps.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Our study was a cluster randomized, controlled trial involving 40 hemodialysis facilities and four transplant centers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. Four trained kidney transplant recipients met regularly with patients on hemodialysis at 20 intervention facilities, determined their step in the transplant process, and provided tailored information and assistance in completing that step and subsequent steps. Patients at 20 control facilities continued to receive usual care. Primary study outcomes were waiting list placement and receipt of a deceased or living donor transplant. An exploratory outcome was first visit to a transplant center.

RESULTS

Before the trial, intervention (1041 patients) and control (836 patients) groups were similar in the proportions of patients who made a first visit to a transplant center, were placed on a waiting list, and received a deceased or living donor transplant. At the end of the trial, intervention and control groups were also similar in first visit (16.1% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 5.5%), waitlisting (16.3% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2% to 6.1%), deceased donor transplantation (2.8% versus 2.2%; difference, 0.6%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 2.1%), and living donor transplantation (1.2% versus 1.0%; difference, 0.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 1.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of trained kidney transplant recipients as navigators did not increase first visits to a transplant center, waiting list placement, and receipt of deceased or living donor transplants.

Effect of the iChoose Kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: A randomized controlled trial

We previously developed a mobile- and web-based decision aid (iChoose Kidney) that displays individualized risk estimates of survival and mortality, for the treatment modalities of dialysis versus kidney transplantation. We examined the effect of iChoose Kidney on change in transplant knowledge and access to transplant in a randomized controlled trial among patients presenting for evaluation in three transplant centers. A total of 470 patients were randomized to standard transplantation education (control) or standard education plus iChoose Kidney (intervention). Change in transplant knowledge (primary outcome) among intervention versus control patients was assessed using nine items in pre- and postevaluation surveys. Access to transplant (secondary outcome) was defined as a composite of waitlisting, living donor inquiries, or transplantation. Among 443 patients (n = 226 intervention; n = 216 control), the mean knowledge scores were 5.1 ± 2.1 pre- and 5.8 ± 1.9 postevaluation. Change in knowledge was greater among intervention (1.1 ± 2.0) versus control (0.4 ± 1.8) patients (P < .0001). Access to transplantation was similar among intervention (n = 168; 74.3%) versus control patients (n = 153; 70.5%; P = .37). The iChoose Kidney decision aid improved patient knowledge at evaluation, but did not impact transplant access. Future studies should examine whether combining iChoose Kidney with other interventions can increase transplantation. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02235571).