Readiness of wait-listed black patients to pursue live donor kidney transplant

Racialized and Immigrant Status and the Pursuit of Living Donor Kidney Transplant - a Canadian Cohort Study

Introduction

Both immigrant and racialized status may be associated with the pursuit of living donor kidney transplant (LDKT).

Methods

This study was a secondary analysis of a convenience cross-sectional sample of patients with kidney failure in Toronto, obtained from our "Comprehensive Psychosocial Research Data System" research database. The exposures included racialized, immigrant, and combined immigrant and racialized status (White nonimmigrant, racialized nonimmigrant, White immigrant and racialized immigrant). Outcomes include the following: (i) having spoken about LDKT with others, (ii) having a potential living donor (LD) identified, (iii) having allowed others to share the need for LDKT, (iv) having directly asked a potential donor to be tested, and (v) accept a hypothetical LDKT offer. We assessed the association between exposure and outcomes using univariable, and multivariable binary or multinominal logistic regression (reference: White or White nonimmigrant participants).

Results

Of the 498 participants, 281 (56%) were immigrants; 142 (28%) were African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB); 123 (25%) were Asian; and 233 (47%) were White. Compared to White nonimmigrants, racialized immigrants (relative risk ratio [RRR]: 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.76-5.03) and racialized nonimmigrants (RRR: 2.84; 95% CI: 1.22-6.65) were more likely not to have spoken about LDKT with others (vs. having spoken or planning to do so). Both racialized immigrant (odds ratio [OR]: 4.07; 95% CI: 2.50-6.34), racialized nonimmigrants (OR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.31-5.51) and White immigrants (OR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.43-5.05) were more likely not to have a potential LD identified.

Conclusion

Both racialized and immigrant status are associated with less readiness to pursue LDKT. Supporting patients to communicate their need for LDKT may improve equitable access to LDKT.

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.

Association of Age and Gender With Concerns About Live Donor Kidney Transplantation Among Black Individuals

Black individuals are less likely to receive live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) compared to others. This may be partly related to their concerns about LDKT, which can vary based on age and gender. We conducted a cross-sectional, secondary analysis of the baseline enrollment data from the Talking about Living Kidney Donation Support trial, which studied the effectiveness of social workers and financial interventions on activation towards LDKT among 300 Black individuals from a deceased donor waiting list. We assessed concerns regarding the LDKT process, including their potential need for postoperative social support, future reproductive potential, recipient and donor money matters, recipient and donor safety, and interpersonal concerns. Answers ranged from 0 ("not at all concerned") to 10 ("extremely concerned"). We described and compared participants' concerns both overall and stratified by age (≥45 years old vs <45 years old) and self-reported gender ("male" versus "female"). The participants' top concerns were donor safety (median [IQR] score 10 [5-10]), recipient safety (5 [0-10]), money matters (5 [0-9]), and guilt/indebtedness (5 [0-9]). Younger females had statistically significantly higher odds of being concerned about future reproductive potential (odds ratio [OR] 3.77, 95% CI 2.77, 4.77), and older males had statistically higher mean concern about postoperative social support (OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.19, 3.38). Interventions to improve rates of LDKT among Black individuals should include education and counseling about the safety of LDKT for both recipients and donors, reproductive counseling for female LDKT candidates of childbearing age, and addressing older males' needs for increased social support.

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.

Receipt and Sharing of Information to Improve Knowledge About Living Donor Kidney Transplant among Transplant Candidates with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

Introduction: Knowledge about living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is associated with greater access. Yet, little is known about factors associated with high living donor transplant knowledge. Research Questions: Is receipt of LDKT information from health professionals or sharing information with family and friends associated with higher knowledge? Design: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from preemptive LDKT candidates, which assessed knowledge, receipt of information about living donation from health professionals, and history of having shared living donor information with family members or friends. In multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for participants' age, race, and total household income, we quantified the association of high knowledge with receipt of living donation information from health professionals and sharing of this information with family/friends. Results: Among 130 participants, the median (IQR) age was 59.5 (52.0-65.0) years, 60% were female, 47.7% were Black, and 49.2% had a high school education or less. Over half (55.4%) had high LDKT knowledge. Nearly one third reported having received living donor information (33.1%) or sharing the information with family/friends (28.5%). After adjustment, those who received (vs. did not receive information) and shared information with family/friends had 3-fold higher odds of high LDKT knowledge (3.05 [1.24, 8.08]). Individuals who received LDKT information (vs. did not) from health professionals had 4-fold higher odds of high LDKT knowledge (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 4.01 [1.49, 12.18]. Conclusions: Receipt of living donation information from health professionals and sharing this information with family/friends were associated with high LDKT knowledge.

Apolipoprotein L1 Opinions of African American Living Kidney Donors, Kidney Transplant Patients, and Nonpatients

INTRODUCTION

The discovery of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) has raised important ethical and clinical questions about genetic testing in the context of living and deceased kidney donation. Largely missing from this discussion are the perspectives of those African Americans (AA) most likely to be impacted by ApoL1 testing.

METHODS

We surveyed 331 AA potential and former living kidney donors (LKDs), kidney transplant candidates and recipients, and nonpatients at three United States transplant programs about their ApoL1 testing attitudes.

RESULTS

Overall, 72% felt that transplant programs should offer ApoL1 testing to AA potential LKDs. If a potential LKD has the high-risk genotype, 79% felt that the LKD should be allowed to make their own donation decision or participate in shared decision-making with transplant doctors. More than half of the potential LKDs (58%) would undergo ApoL1 testing and 81% of former LKDs would take the test now if offered. Most transplant candidates expressed a low likelihood of accepting a kidney from a LKD (79%) or a deceased donor (67%) with the high-risk genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong support among LKDs and transplant patients for ApoL1 testing when evaluating potential kidney donors of African ancestry. Inclusion of AA stakeholders in developing guidelines and educational programs for ApoL1 testing is critical.

Protocol for a Process Evaluation of the Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Many patients who would benefit from a kidney transplant never receive one. The Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial is testing whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention, provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care), can help patients with CKD with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant complete more steps toward receiving a transplant (primary outcome of the trial). The EnAKT LKD intervention has 4 components: (1) quality Improvement teams and administrative support, (2) improved transplant education for patients and healthcare providers, (3) access to support and (4) program-level performance monitoring.

Objective:

To conduct a process evaluation of the EnAKT LKD quality improvement intervention to determine if the components were delivered, received, and enacted as designed (fidelity), and if the intervention addressed intended barriers (mechanisms of change).

Design:

A mixed-methods process evaluation informed by new practice implementation and theories of behavior change.

Setting:

Chronic kidney disease programs in Ontario, Canada, began receiving the EnAKT LKD intervention on November 1, 2017 and will continue to receive it until December 31, 2021. The process evaluation (interviews and surveys) will occur alongside the trial, between December 2020 to May 2021.

Participants:

Healthcare providers (eg, dialysis nurses, nephrologists, members of the multi-care kidney clinic team) at Ontario’s 27 CKD programs.

Methods:

We will survey and interview healthcare providers at each CKD program, and complete an intervention implementation checklist. Quantitative data from the surveys and the intervention implementation checklist will assess fidelity to the intervention, while quantitative and qualitative data from surveys and interviews will provide insight into the mechanisms of change.

Limitations:

The long trial period may result in poor participant recall.

Conclusion:

This process evaluation will enhance interpretation of the trial findings, guide improvements in the intervention components, and inform future implementation.

Trial registration:

Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.

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.

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.

Disparities in chronic kidney disease-the state of the evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review was to assess the prevalence of United States chronic kidney disease (CKD) health disparities, focusing on racial/ethnic groups, immigrants and refugees, sex or gender, and older adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are major racial/ethnic disparities in CKD, with possible contributions from the social determinants of health, socioeconomics, and racial discrimination. Racial/ethnic minority patients experience faster progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and higher mortality predialysis, however, once on dialysis, appear to live longer. Similarly, men are quicker to progress to ESKD than women, with potential biological, behavioral, and measurement error factors. There is a lack of substantial evidence for intersex, nonbinary, or transgender patients. There are also strikingly few studies about US immigrants or older adults with CKD despite the fact that they are at high risk for CKD due to a variety of factors.

SUMMARY

As providers and scientists, we must combat both conscious and unconscious biases, advocate for minority patient populations, and be inclusive and diverse in our treatment regimens and provision of care. We need to acknowledge that sufficient evidence exists to change treatment guidelines, and that more is required to support the diversity of our patient population.

African Americans' discussions about living-donor kidney transplants with family or friends: Who, what, and why not?

BACKGROUND

Although discussions with family or friends can improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), they remain an understudied step in the LDKT process.

METHODS

Among 300 African American transplant candidates, we examined how sociodemographic, clinical, LDKT-related, and psychosocial characteristics related to the occurrence of LDKT discussions with family or friends. We also analyzed the relation between discussion occurrence and donor activation on transplant candidates' behalves (at least one donor inquiry or completed donor evaluation in the medical record). We assessed associations of discussion characteristics (context, content, and perceptions) with donor activation among discussants, and we identified discussion barriers among non-discussants.

RESULTS

Most candidates (90%) had discussed LDKT. Only family functioning was statistically significantly associated with discussion occurrence. Specifically, family dysfunction was associated with 62% lower odds of discussion than family function. Family functioning, discussion occurrence, and different discussion characteristics were statistically significantly related to donor activation. The most prevalent discussion barrier was never having thought about discussing LDKT.

CONCLUSIONS

Family functioning affected the likelihood of discussing LDKT, and family functioning, discussion occurrence, and discussion characteristics were associated with donor activation. Advancing understanding of how family functioning and LDKT discussions affect progression to LDKT may benefit interventions to increase LDKT.

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.

A Qualitative Assessment of the Living Donor Navigator Program to Identify Core Competencies and Promising Practices for Implementation

Introduction:

The best strategy to increase awareness of and access to living kidney donation remains unknown. To build upon the existing strategies, we developed the Living Donor Navigator program, combining advocacy training of patient advocates with enhanced health-care systems training of patient navigators to address potential living donor concerns during the evaluation process. Herein, we describe a systematic assessment of the delivery and content of the program through focus group discussion.

Methods:

We conducted focus groups with 9 advocate participants in the Living Donor Navigator program to identify knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for both advocates and navigators. We focused on 2 organizational levels: (1) the participant level or the advocacy training of the advocates and (2) the programmatic level or the support role provided by the navigators and administration of the program.

Findings:

From 4 common themes (communication, education, support, and commitment), we identified several core competencies and promising practices, at both the participant and programmatic levels. These themes highlighted the potential for several improvements of program content and delivery, the importance of cultural sensitivity among the Living Donor navigators, and the opportunity for informal caregiver support and accountability provided by the program.

Discussion:

These competencies and promising practices represent actionable strategies for content refinement, optimal training of advocates, and engagement of potential living donors through the Living Donor Navigator program. These findings may also assist with program implementation at other transplant centers in the future.

Ethnic background is associated with no live kidney donor identified at the time of first transplant assessment-an opportunity missed? A single-center retrospective cohort study

Patients from ethnocultural minorities have reduced access to live donor kidney transplant (LDKT). To explore early pretransplant ethnocultural disparities in LDKT readiness, and the impact of the interactions with the transplant program, we assessed if patients had a potential live donor (LD) identified at first pretransplant assessment, and if patients with no LD initially received LDKT subsequently. Single-center, retrospective cohort of adults referred for kidney transplant (KT) assessment. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the association between ethnicity and having a potential LD. Cox proportional hazard analysis assessed the association between no potential LD initially and subsequent LDKT. Of 1617 participants, 66% of Caucasians indicated having a potential LD, compared with 55% of South Asians, 44% of African Canadians, and 41% of East Asians (P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, the odds of having a potential LD identified was significantly lower for African, East and South Asian Canadians. No potential LD at initial KT assessment was associated with lower likelihood of LDKT subsequently (hazard ratio [HR], 0.14; [0.10-0.19]). Compared to Caucasians, African, East and South Asian and African Canadians are less likely to have a potential LD identified at first KT assessment, which predicts a lower likelihood of subsequent LDKT.

Explore Transplant Ontario: Adapting the Explore Transplant Education Program to Facilitate Informed Decision Making About Kidney Transplantation

Purpose:

In this article, we describe a province-wide collaborative project in which we adapted the Explore Transplant (ET) education program for use in Ontario, Canada, to develop Explore Transplant Ontario (ETO). Kidney transplantation (KT), especially living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), is the best treatment for many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), with the best patient survival and quality of life and also reduced health care costs. Yet KT and LDKT are underutilized both internationally and in Canada. Research has demonstrated that patients with ESKD who receive personalized transplant education are more likely to complete the transplant evaluation process and to receive LDKT compared with patients who do not receive this education.

Sources of information:

Research expertise of the lead authors and Medline search of studies assessing the impact of education interventions on access to KT and LDKT.

Methods:

The ET program, developed by Dr Amy Waterman, has been used in thousands of patients with ESKD in the United States to enhance KT and LDKT knowledge. To adapt this program for use in Ontario, we convened a working group, including patient representatives, nephrologists, transplant coordinators, dialysis nurses, and patient educators from all Ontario KT centers and selected dialysis units. In an iterative process concluding in a consensus workshop, the working group reviewed and edited the text of the original ET program and suggested changes to the videos.

Key findings:

The adapted program reflects the Ontario health care environment and responds to the specific needs of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the province. The videos feature Ontario transplant nephrologists, transplant coordinators, and patients, representative of the ethnic diversity in Ontario, sharing their transplant experience and expertise. Despite the changes, ETO is consistent with the quality and style of the original ET program. At the end of this article, we summarize subsequent steps to test and utilize ETO. Those projects, specifically the ETO pilot study and a multicomponent quality improvement initiative to increase utilization of KT and LDKT across Ontario, will be described in full in future papers.

Limitations:

This article describes a provincial initiative; therefore, our findings may not be fully generalizable without further considerations. The adapted education program has not yet been tested in large trial for effectiveness.

Implications:

As a program grounded in the theoretical model of behavior change, ETO places patients with ESKD at the center of a complex process of navigating renal replacement therapy modalities and acknowledges a broad range of patient values, priorities, and states of readiness to pursue KT.

Socio-sanitary profile and information for living kidney donors and recipients in three Andalusian hospitals

BACKGROUND

Information provided by health professionals to potential donors and recipients is essential for an autonomous and objective decision to make a living kidney donation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the characteristics of the information received by living kidney donors and recipients, to find out their socio-sanitary profile, their socio-demographics, financial and labour characteristics, health and the caregiving activity of these donors and recipients.

METHODS

Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study of the population of living kidney donors and recipients from the University Hospitals Puerta del Mar (Cádiz), Virgen del Rocío (Seville), and the University Hospital Complex of Granada, between 08/04/2014 and 08/06/2015.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

According to the 40 living kidney donors and their 40 recipients surveyed, it is mainly nephrologists who make people aware and provide information about living kidney donation. Almost half of recipients require more information so the evaluation processes and pre-donation information should be updated. In general, the living kidney donor is female, aged 50, with primary/secondary education, lives with a partner and is related to the kidney recipient. Also, the living kidney donor is in paid employment, is overweight, perceives her health as very good or good, and does not smoke or drink alcohol. However, the typical living kidney recipient is male, aged 44 and has completed secondary school studies and vocational training. Furthermore, he does not work, perceives his health as good or regular, and he is an independent person for activities of daily living.

Predictors and Moderators of Educational Interventions to Increase the Likelihood of Potential Living Donors for Black Patients Awaiting Kidney Transplantation

Our aim was to identify predictors and moderators of the effects of a house calls (HC) educational intervention, relative to a group-based (GB) intervention and to individual counseling (IC), in a randomized controlled trial to increase the likelihood of having living donor (LD) evaluations initiated and live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Black adults wait listed for kidney transplantation (N = 152) were randomized into one of the three educational conditions. We examined demographic, clinical, psychosocial, and socio-contextual baseline characteristics as predictors and moderators of having a potential LD initiate evaluation. HC assignment (OR = 2.024.7311.05, P = 0.001), younger age (OR = 0.910.940.98, P = 0.001), more willingness to discuss donation with others (OR = 1.081.371.75, P = 0.01), and larger social network (OR = 1.011.091.18, P = 0.04) were significant multivariable predictors of having ≥1 LD initiate evaluation. Age (P = 0.03) and social network size (P = 0.02) moderated the effect of HC relative to IC and GB, but not GB relative to IC, on LD evaluation initiation. Our findings suggest that HC is most effective for patients <60 years old and those with average or large social network size.

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.