Lost in Translation: Cultural Obstructions Impede Living Kidney Donation among Minority Ethnic Patients

Cultural and other beliefs as barriers to pediatric solid organ transplantation

Organ shortage for transplantation is a global problem for both adult and pediatric recipients and this is particularly apparent in certain areas of the world and within specific communities. Cultural and religious beliefs can influence both a decision by a potential donor and/or their family to donate as well as a potential recipient's or their family's decision to accept the need for transplantation, agree to be listed and accept an organ. Globally, there are cultural and religious diversities that can present significant challenges for the transplant professional, particularly those whose practice is based in multicultural communities. In the pediatric population, in particular, barriers to organ transplantation related to culture and religion have not been well-described, with resulting implications for how they should or could be effectively addressed. Therefore, this review was undertaken to elucidate cultural and religious barriers to pediatric organ transplantation and, where feasible, to identify facilitators and strategies for overcoming these barriers.

Investigating Ethnic Disparity in Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation in the UK: Patient-Identified Reasons for Non-Donation among Family Members

There is ethnic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplants in the UK. This study asked kidney patients from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups why members of their family were not able to be living kidney donors. Responses were compared with responses from White individuals. This questionnaire-based mixed-methods study included adults transplanted between 1/4/13–31/3/17 at 14 UK hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate why relatives could not donate, selecting all options applicable from: Age; Health; Weight; Location; Financial/Cost; Job; Blood group; No-one to care for them after donation. A box entitled ‘Other—please give details’ was provided for free-text entries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse the association between the likelihood of selecting each reason for non-donation and the participant’s self-reported ethnicity. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. In total, 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). There was strong evidence that Black, Asian and minority ethnic group individuals were more likely than White people to indicate that family members lived too far away to donate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.30–4.58), were prevented from donating by financial concerns (aOR = 2.95, 95% CI 2.02–4.29), were unable to take time off work (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18–3.02), were “not the right blood group” (aOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.35–2.01), or had no-one to care for them post-donation (aOR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.60–5.35). Four qualitative themes were identified from responses from Black, Asian and minority ethnic group participants: ‘Burden of disease within the family’; ‘Differing religious interpretations’; ‘Geographical concerns’; and ‘A culture of silence’. Patients perceive barriers to living kidney donation in the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population. If confirmed, these could be targeted by interventions to redress the observed ethnic inequity.

Psychosocial wellbeing after living kidney donation - a longitudinal, prospective study

Living kidney donation (LKD) has become routine practice across the world as the gold standard treatment of end-stage renal failure. Whilst the physical risks and harms of LKD surgery are well documented, relatively little is known about psychosocial outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine whether it was possible to quantify the psychosocial impact of LKD. A prospective longitudinal study of 93 living kidney donors was performed. Data were collected preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months after donation. Questionnaires included 11 validated psychosocial outcome measures and questions specific to LKD. Over time, there was no significant change in wellbeing, life satisfaction, self-esteem, social comparison, distress, depression, stress, anxiety or social support at 3 or 12 months. Despite this, questions specific to LKD indicated that donors felt positively about donation, with low levels of regret. This study provides a thorough assessment of psychosocial outcomes after LKD over the first year. Donors felt positive about LKD although there was no evidence of any significant change in psychosocial outcomes. Despite no measurable psychosocial benefit after living kidney donation, there was also no evidence of harm.

Socioeconomic deprivation and barriers to live-donor kidney transplantation: a qualitative study of deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients

OBJECTIVES

Socioeconomically deprived individuals with renal disease are less likely to receive a live-donor kidney transplant than less-deprived individuals. This qualitative study aimed to identify reasons for the observed socioeconomic disparity in live-donor kidney transplantation.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using face-to-face in-depth semistructured interviews.

SETTING

A UK tertiary renal referral hospital and transplant centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sampling was used to select deceased-donor transplant recipients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation (SED) (19 participants), followed by a low SED comparison group (13 participants), aiming for maximum diversity in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, primary renal disease and previous renal replacement therapy.

METHODS

Participants were interviewed following their routine transplant clinic review. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software and analysed using the constant comparison method described in Grounded Theory.

RESULTS

Themes common and distinct to each socioeconomic group emerged. 6 themes appeared to distinguish between individuals from areas of high and low SED. 4 themes were distinct to participants from areas of high SED: (1) Passivity, (2) Disempowerment, (3) Lack of social support and (4) Short-term focus. 2 themes were distinct to the low SED group: (1) Financial concerns and (2) Location of donor.

CONCLUSIONS

Several of the emerging themes from the high SED individuals relate to an individual's lack of confidence and skill in managing their health and healthcare; themes that are in keeping with low levels of patient activation. Inadequate empowerment of socioeconomically deprived individuals by healthcare practitioners was also described. Financial concerns did not emerge as a barrier from interviews with the high SED group. Interventions aiming to redress the observed socioeconomic inequity should be targeted at both patients and clinical teams to increase empowerment and ensure shared decision-making.