International survey of nephrologists' perceptions and attitudes about rewards and compensations for kidney donation

Public Opinions on Removing Disincentives and Introducing Incentives for Organ Donation: Proposing a European Research Agenda

The shortage of organs for transplantations is increasing in Europe as well as globally. Many initiatives to the organ shortage, such as opt-out systems for deceased donation and expanding living donation, have been insufficient to meet the rising demand for organs. In recurrent discussions on how to reduce organ shortage, financial incentives and removal of disincentives, have been proposed to stimulate living organ donation and increase the pool of available donor organs. It is important to understand not only the ethical acceptability of (dis)incentives for organ donation, but also its societal acceptance. In this review, we propose a research agenda to help guide future empirical studies on public preferences in Europe towards the removal of disincentives and introduction of incentives for organ donation. We first present a systematic literature review on public opinions concerning (financial) (dis)incentives for organ donation in European countries. Next, we describe the results of a randomized survey experiment conducted in the United States. This experiment is crucial because it suggests that societal support for incentivizing organ donation depends on the specific features and institutional design of the proposed incentive scheme. We conclude by proposing this experiment's framework as a blueprint for European research on this topic.

The general public's attitude towards accepting payment for kidney donation

Introduction

Kidney transplantation has become the most cost-effective treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and offers them the highest quality of life. Yet, kidney donation is often inaccessible due to cultural and traditional beliefs about organ donation. The goal of our study is to assess the value of kidney donation using the Willingness to Accept (WTA) technique. We also aim to understand the factors influencing an individual's willingness to donate an organ.

Methods

A self-administered survey was completed by 985 participants from the general public. The quantitative method and survey design that were chosen used descriptive, correlational, nonparametric, and multivariate statistical tests.

Results

Most of the respondents, 895 (90.9%) are not willing to donate a kidney while alive. Four hundred and five (41.1%) of the respondents are not willing to donate a kidney after their death, while the rest are willing to donate their kidney after their death without financial compensation. The same attitude applies to the donation of a kidney from their relatives. Significant predictors from the results of the logistic regression model in predicting the lowest (minimal) amount that will encourage donation of one kidney after death were: Marital status; Nationality; Adi card holder; Knowing people who need a kidney donation; confidence in the medical staff; and consideration of the family's opinions regarding organ donation.

Discussion

Using cost benefit analysis (CBA), with the aim of evaluating the willingness of individuals to accept payment for innovative medical procedures, such as kidney donation, allows an assessment of the perceived value of the medical procedure and enables policymakers to decide whether to allocate funds or offer subsidies for kidney donation, given the limited healthcare resources available. During our research, we found that most participants did not support the commercialization of organs. Our recommendation for policymakers and health professionals is to continue providing adequate funding for kidney donations and to implement educational programs aimed at improving attitudes towards organ donation.

A review of the possibility of adopting financially driven live donor kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation for end-stage renal disease remains the preferred solution due to its survival advantage, enhanced quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The main obstacle worldwide with this modality of treatment is the scarcity of organs. The demand has always exceeded the supply resulting in different types of donations. Kidney donation includes pure living related donors, deceased donors, living unrelated donors (altruistic), paired kidney donation and more recently compensated kidney donation. Ethical considerations in live donor kidney transplantation have always created a debate especially when rewarding unrelated donors. In this paper, we examine the problems of financially driven kidney transplantation, the ethical legitimacy of this practice, and propose some innovative methods and policies that could be adopted to ensure a better practice with accepted ethical guidelines.

Opinions of Health Care Personnel Regarding Disincentives and Incentives for Living Kidney Donation at a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Transplant societies continue to actively concentrate on increasing rates of living kidney donation (LKD) to bridge the gap between individuals awaiting transplantation and the number of kidneys available. A widely discussed strategy to increase living donation rates is the provision of incentives and removal of disincentives. Though opinions of the public regarding this strategy have been studied, the opinions of health care providers, including younger professionals, are less clear. We studied the opinions of medical students and other health care providers on strategies to increase LKD to determine if opinions were different among those < 25 or ≥ 25 years of age.

METHODS

A simple cross-sectional survey was conducted at an academic medical center. Participants included medical students and employees in Internal Medicine, General Surgery, and the Organ Transplantation Center. Pearson's χ² and Fisher's exact test were conducted on the responses regarding disincentives and incentives to determine whether opinions differed based on age.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-four participants completed the survey. There was no statistical difference in opinions between groups on reimbursing transportation costs, loss of wages, or childcare costs, but those aged ≥ 25 were more agreeable with covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25 (96.5% vs 90.7%, P = .009). Respondents < 25 years old were more willing to donate a kidney for a financial incentive (P = .0002) accepting a median amount of $25,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care personnel broadly support removing financial disincentives for living kidney donation, and those ≥ 25 were more in favor of covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25. Those < 25 years old were more likely to accept financial incentives towards donating their kidney compared to those ≥ 25 years.

The Living Donor Lost Wages Trial: Study Rationale and Protocol

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper describes the background, rationale, and design of an NIH-funded, single-center study to test the impact of offering reimbursement for donor lost wages incurred during the post-nephrectomy recovery period on the live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) rate in newly evaluated kidney transplant candidates, to examine whether offering reimbursement for donor lost wages reduces racial disparity in LDKT rates, and to determine whether higher reimbursement amounts lead to higher LDKT rates.

RECENT FINDINGS

LDKT is the optimal treatment for renal failure. However, living kidney donation has declined in the past decade, particularly among men, younger adults, blacks, and low-income adults. There is evidence that donation-related costs may deter both transplant candidates and potential donors from considering LDKT. Lost wages is a major source of financial loss for some living donors and, unlike travel and lodging expenses, is not reimbursed by financial assistance programs.

SUMMARY

The study addresses the transplant community's call to reduce the financial burden of living donation and examine its impact on LDKT rates. Findings have the potential to influence policy, clinical practice, LDKT access, and income-related and racial disparities in LDKT and living donation.

Compulsory Organ Retrieval: Morally, But Not Socially, Justified

The number of patients with organ failure who could potentially benefit from transplantation continues to exceed the available supply of organs. Despite numerous efforts to increase the number of donors, there remains an enormous mismatch between demand and supply. Large numbers of people still die with potentially transplantable organs remaining in situ, most frequently as a result of family objections. I argue that there are no persuasive moral arguments against mandated organ retrieval from all dead individuals who meet clinical criteria. However, because of continuing endemic prejudice in United States society and its healthcare system and the distrust this engenders, I conclude that proceeding with a policy of compulsory organ retrieval, even if morally unobjectionable, would not be warranted.

Organ donation and transplantation in Mexico. A transplantation health professionals’ perspective

Objective:

We aimed to explore organ donation and transplantation in Mexico from the point of view of transplantation health professionals.

Materials and methods:

A qualitative study was carried out. Twenty six organ transplantation health professionals from seven states of Mexico participated. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted mainly in hospital settings. Critical discourse analysis was performed.

Results:

According to participants, living organ transplantation offers benefits for recipients as well as for donors. Several factors influence the field of transplantation negatively, among them the scarcity of resources that impedes the incorporation of new health personnel, as well as conflicts between transplantation teams with diverse health professionals and authorities.

Conclusion:

Besides increasing economic resources, transplantation health personnel should be sensitized to find solutions in order to avoid conflicts with different health professionals. Studies on organ donation and transplants also should include other social actors' viewpoint.

Concern for Lost Income Following Donation Deters Some Patients From Talking to Potential Living Donors

CONTEXT

Some living kidney donors report lost income during recovery from surgery. Little is known about whether concern for living donor's lost income affects the decision to undergo donation evaluation and the willingness of transplant candidates to discuss living kidney donation (LKD) with others.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether transplant patients were told by potential donors about lost income concerns and whether patients chose not to discuss LKD with others due to lost income concerns.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Kidney transplant patients (185 wait-listed candidates, 171 deceased donor recipients, and 100 live donor recipients) at 2 centers completed a questionnaire to assess whether concern about donor's lost income was a consideration in discussion about LKD with others.

RESULTS

One-third (32%) were told by a family member/friend that they were willing to donate but were concerned about potential lost income. The majority of those who expressed financial concern (64%) did not initiate donation evaluation. Many patients (42%) chose not to discuss living donation with a family member/friend due to concern about the impact of lost income on the donor. In the multivariable model, lower annual household income was the only statistically significant predictor of both having a potential donor expressing lost income concern and choosing not to talk to someone because of lost income concern.

CONCLUSION

Findings from the current study underscore how concern about income loss for living donors may affect decision-making by both transplant candidates and potential donors.

The global pediatric nephrology workforce: a survey of the International Pediatric Nephrology Association

BACKGROUND

The global pediatric nephrology workforce is poorly characterized. The objectives of our study were to assess pediatric nephrologists' perceptions of the adequacy of the pediatric nephrology workforce, and understand regional challenges to fellow recruitment and job acquisition. Perceptions regarding optimal length of training and research requirements were also queried.

METHODS

A 17-question web-based survey comprised of 14 close-ended and 3 open-ended questions was e-mailed to members of the International Pediatric Nephrology Association. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We received 341 responses from members of the International Pediatric Nephrology Association from 71 countries. There was a high degree of overall perceived workforce inadequacy with 67 % of all respondents reporting some degree of shortage. Perceived workforce shortage ranged from 20 % in Australia/New Zealand to 100 % in Africa. Respondents from Africa (25 %) and North America (22.4 %) reported the greatest difficulty recruiting fellows. Respondents from Australia/New Zealand (53.3 %) and Latin America (31.3 %) reported the greatest perceived difficulty finding jobs as pediatric nephrologists after training. Low trainee interest, low salary, lack of government or institutional support, and few available jobs in pediatric nephrology were the most frequently reported obstacles to fellow recruitment and job availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, there is a high level of perceived inadequacy in the pediatric nephrology workforce. Regional variability exists in perceived workforce adequacy, ease of recruitment, and job acquisition. Interventions to improve recruitment targeted to specific regional barriers are suggested.

Attitude of medical professionals regarding controversial issues in kidney donation/transplantation

There is a dire need to evaluate new strategies to bridge the wide kidney demand-supply gap. The current study examined the attitude of medical professionals regarding controversial issues pertaining to transplantation. A questionnaire, presenting controversial issues related to kidney transplantation, in an agree-disagree format with supporting reasons, was employed. The research was exploratory. Data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The sample comprised 140 doctors from Mumbai (mean = 38.1 years, standard deviation = 17.95; Males = 44.3%, Females = 55.7%). Whereas 47.1% of the participants felt that live donors should be given incentives for kidney donation, others (52.9%) disagreed, fearing commercialization and illegal activities. The eligibility of patients with HIV/hepatitis for a transplant was denied by 52.9% because of poor outcomes, with the others (47.1%) maintaining that these individuals too had a right to live. A substantial majority (90.7%) of the participants maintained that organ donors should be given priority in the event of a future need for an organ because their previous humane act should be rewarded (47.1%). Most of the participants (91.4%) felt that individuals from the higher socioeconomic strata should not receive preference for kidney transplantation. A majority (77.1%) of them were also against kidney selling getting legalized. Compulsory possession of a donor card elicited mixed responses, with some accepting (56.4%), but others rejecting (43.6%) this idea as donation was perceived to be a voluntary act (33.6%). While compulsory kidney donation found favor with 44.3%, it found disfavor with others (55.7%). This study will benefit transplant healthcare personnel to formulate new policies in relation to kidney donation/transplantation.

'Because you can't live on love': living kidney donors' perspectives on compensation and payment for organ donation

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Living kidney donation accounts for approximately half of all kidney transplantation in many countries and is central to health policy focused on increasing organ supply. However, little examination of the economic consequences of living kidney donation has been undertaken from the perspective of donors themselves. This article documents living kidney donors' views regarding recompense and payment for organ donation, based on their experience.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five living kidney donors from New Zealand participated in this study.

METHODS

This qualitative study, based on thematic analysis, uses semi-structured in-depth interviews to examine the experiences of living kidney donors. Themes were organized around altruism and the 'gift', perceptions of shared corporeality and identity, and donor support.

RESULTS

Most participants agreed the donation process was costly in terms of time and money. Many incurred personal costs, and some experienced financial hardship. All the participants viewed financial hardship as a barrier to organ donation and favoured recompense for direct and indirect costs. Most did not support payment for organs, and none supported commercialization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that framing organ donation as a 'gift' can stymie discussion about reciprocity, remuneration and exchange, making talk about financial recompense difficult. Financial well-being, nonetheless, has implications for the ability to care for self and others post-operatively. We conclude that the economic consequences for living kidney donors in jurisdictions where recompense for direct and indirect costs is insufficient are unfair. Review of financial assistance for live organ donors is therefore recommended.

Paid Organ Donation: An Italian Perspective

The only countries that have allowed financial incentives for organ donation are Iran since 1988, and later on, Singapore and Saudi Arabia. In Europe, and of course in Italy, financial incentives for donors are prohibited. The author has completed extensive research via the Internet (PubMed) of worldwide scientific literature on paid organ donation, also researching studies concerning public opinion on organ commercialism and "regulated markets". Italian transplant laws also have been reported and analyzed.

Policy perspectives: international survey of nephrologists' perceptions of and attitudes towards rewards and compensation for kidney donation

The challenge to resolve the gap between supply and demand for organs is a global phenomenon. The possible solutions can invariably involve a range of ethical and moral dilemmas. This is certainly the case when considering rewards and compensation for kidney donation. In their thought provoking study, Ghahramami et al. provide the perspectives of medical professionals on these issues. The views of nephrologists concerning rewards and compensation chime with views of the public, which have been highlighted in many previous studies. Rewards and compensation for organ donation are perceived, by some, as barriers to successful organ donation transplant programmes; whereas others view them as potential facilitators to increasing organ donation rates. It is interesting to note that two-thirds of survey respondents believe that introducing some kind of reward or offering compensation would lead to an increase in organ donation. This finding is not unique to this study and is evident in many public surveys where respondents have expressed a belief that offering some form of incentive would have a positive impact on organ donation rates. Disappointingly, the debates concerning the type of reward or compensation and its potential impact on donation rates continue to take place in a relatively 'evidence base-free' vacuum. What is abundantly clear is that many lives continue to be lost in many countries due to a lack of suitable organs for transplant. What is less clear is which forms of reward and compensation actually have an impact on donation rates and whether they positively impact the life experiences of donors, recipients and their families. This level of evidence- base is urgently required.