Expectations and Experiences of Follow-up and Self-Care After Living Kidney Donation: A Focus Group Study

Experiences of living kidney donors: A synthesis of unsolicited patient narratives

INTRODUCTION

Despite the lauded benefits of living kidney donation, there is growing evidence of the challenges that living kidney donors (LKD) encounter in their donation trajectory and gaps in healthcare service provision. However, most of the evidence is derived from research conducted by clinicians or academic investigators. Significantly less attention has been devoted to analyzing unsolicited accounts of LKDs' experiences.

METHODS

We conducted a review and synthesis of published unsolicited first-person narratives of LKDs and aimed to synthesize their experiences and identify care needs. Four electronic databases were searched and 27 LKD narratives were included in our final analysis. Thematic synthesis was used to generate themes inductively.

RESULTS

Although the majority of LKDs reported the act of donation to be a fulfilling experience, almost 48% reported encountering challenges in the care that they received. Also, 29% of LKDs reported experiencing an adverse clinical event. Five distinct themes emerged surrounding the donation experience and healthcare needs: 1) Educational needs due to perceived lack of transparency and compensating for knowledge gaps; 2) Respect for donor autonomy due to coercive influences from family or healthcare providers, lack of respect for donor preferences and loopholes in the consent process; 3) Unmet care needs related to poor communication with healthcare providers, coordination issues and inconsistent and inadequate long-term care; 4) Unanticipated outcomes due to economic costs and the emotional burden of donation; and 5) Contributing beyond the donation event by advocating for a balanced view of donation and generating support mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

In this synthesis of LKDs narratives, important care gaps and the need to advocate for a balanced perspective on living kidney donation were highlighted. Our review underscores the value of patients' own stories as critical evidence that can inform improvement in healthcare service delivery.

Post-Donation Evaluation: Emotional Needs for Social Connection and Social Support among Living Kidney Donors-A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of post-nephrectomy social health in living kidney donors is essential. This systematic review examines their emotional need for social relatedness post-donation.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

Among the screened records, 32 quantitative and 16 qualitative papers met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative research predominantly utilized questionnaires featuring generic items on social functioning. However, a minority delved into emotional and social dimensions, aligning with qualitative studies emphasizing the importance of social connection and perceived social support post-donation. Specifically, post-donation changes in connecting with others encompass a sense of belongingness, heightened autonomy, shifts in concern for the recipient's health, and continued care by shielding the recipient from personal health issues. Social acknowledgment and social support from both close and extended networks are reported as relevant for recovery after nephrectomy.

DISCUSSION

These findings underscore the necessity for targeted measures of emotional needs and social functioning to effectively assess post-donation adjustment. They also inform the identification of key health themes for kidney donor Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) questions.

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

Understanding the Healthcare Needs of Living Kidney Donors Using the Picker Principles of Patient-centered Care: A Scoping Review

Living kidney donors (LKDs) undertake a complex and multifaceted journey when pursuing donation and have several unmet healthcare needs. A comprehensive understanding of these needs across their entire donation trajectory can help develop a patient-centered care model. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize empirical evidence, published since 2000, on LKDs' experiences with healthcare from when they decided to pursue donation to postdonation care, and what they reported as their care needs. We categorized them according to the 8 Picker principles of patient-centered care. Of the 4514 articles screened, 47 were included. Ample literature highlighted the need for (1) holistic, adaptable, and linguistically appropriate approaches to education and information; (2) systematic, consistent, and proactive coordination and integration of care; and (3) self-management and preparation to optimize perioperative physical comfort. Some literature highlighted the need for (4) better continuity and transition of care postdonation. Two key unmet needs were the lack of (5) a holistic psychosocial evaluation predonation and predischarge to provide emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety; and (6) access to specialty and psychosocial services postdonation especially when adverse events occurred. Limited literature explored the principles of (7) respect for patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; and (8) involvement of family and friends as caregivers. We summarize several unmet healthcare needs of LKDs throughout their donation journey and highlight knowledge gaps. Addressing them can improve their well-being and experiences, and potentially address inequities in living kidney donation and increase living donor kidney transplantation.

Donor‐reported barriers to living kidney donor follow‐up

BACKGROUND

Despite regulations mandating follow-up laboratory testing for living kidney donors, less than half of transplant centers are in compliance. We sought to understand barriers to follow-up testing from the donors' perspective.

METHODS

We surveyed our center's living kidney donors. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with follow-up testing completion.

RESULTS

Of 185 living kidney donors, 110 (59.4%) participated. Among them, 82 (74.5%) completed 6-month laboratory testing, 76 (69.1%) completed 12-month testing, 68 (61.8%) completed both, and 21 (19.0%) completed neither. Six-month testing completion was strongly associated with 12-month testing completion (OR 9.74, 95%CI: 2.23-42.50; p = .002). Those who disagreed with the statements, "Getting labs checked wasn't a priority for me," (OR for completing 6-month testing: 15.05, 95%CI: 3.70-61.18; p < .001; OR for completing 12-month testing: 5.85, 95%CI: 1.94-17.63; p = .002); and, "I forgot to get labs drawn [until I was reminded]" (OR for completing 6-month testing: 6.93, 95%CI: 1.59-30.08; p = .01; OR for completing 12-month testing: 6.55, 95%CI: 1.98-21.63; p = .002) were more likely to complete testing.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the only study providing perspective on donor insights regarding the need for follow-up testing post donation. Interventions to influence living donor attitudes toward follow-up testing may improve follow-up.

An intersectional gender analysis in kidney transplantation: women who donate a kidney

BACKGROUND

Living-donor transplantation is the best treatment option in patients with chronic kidney failure. Global data show that women are less likely to be kidney recipients than men but are more likely to become living kidney donors. We explored the experience of women who donate a kidney to relatives with biological and socio-cultural ties and to understand the similarities and differences in their experience.

METHODS

A qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study with an intersectional analysis of gender. Ten women donors accepted in the transplant evaluation period participated, all of whom donated a kidney to a pre-dialysis relative. Two categories were included: women with biological kinship ties (mothers, sisters) and women who have a socio-cultural relationship (wives) with kidney recipient. The data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Women donate their kidneys in a convinced manner, without worrying about their health, with an optimistic and positive attitude, and without believing that they are acting heroically. Women with biological kinship ties see it as a 'naturalization thing'. In contrast, wives donate conditioned by gender roles, but also as a form of empowerment and as a personal benefit: they donate in order to avoid taking on carer role for their husband and as a way of protecting their children.

CONCLUSION

The study's findings expand the conception of kidney donation as solely altruistic and may help professionals to pay attention to the complexity and intersectionality of features present in women who are living kidney donors.

The experience of donating and receiving a kidney: A systematic review of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

The experiences described by people who have undergone kidney transplant are complex. Understanding how donors and recipients experience kidney transplantation can help us to design strategies that provide a more person-centred health care.

OBJECTIVES

To review articles that report the experiences of donors and recipients in the living-donor kidney transplantation process.

METHOD

A systematic review of qualitative studies was carried out. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were used to search for articles published in English, French and Spanish between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included in this review. For recipients, receiving a kidney is a positive experience (positive feelings and significant experience) that also involves certain difficulties and stressors (making a difficult decision, fears and worries). The experience of the donors is positive as they are motivated to improve the life of the recipient. They are committed to donating and use coping strategies as well as experiencing personal growth. On the contrary, being a donor involves certain difficulties and stressors (personal investment, mental, physical and economic impact and overcoming opposition) and a perception of deficiency in the health system (lack of information and attentiveness).

CONCLUSION

Donating and receiving a kidney is a positive experience that involves certain difficulties and a variety of stressors for both the donors and recipients. Moreover, the donors note deficiencies in the health system.

Efficacy of Educational Interventions in Improving Measures of Living-donor Kidney Transplantation Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To address patient-level barriers to living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), centers have implemented educational interventions. Recently, some have highlighted several gaps in knowledge and lack of evidence of efficacy of these interventions. No review has synthesized the available data.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted to increase measures of LDKT. Outcomes of interest were LDKT rates, donor evaluation, donor contact/inquiry, total transplantation rates, and change in knowledge scores and pursuit behaviors. A literature search was conducted across 7 databases from inception until 2017. Educational interventions were a decision/teaching aid alone or with personalized sessions. Comparator was another intervention or nonspecific education. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies.

RESULTS

Of the 1813 references, 15 met the inclusion criteria; 9 were randomized control trials. When compared with nonspecific education, interventions increased LDKT rates (RR = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-4.35), donor evaluation (RR = 3.82; 95% CI, 1.91-7.64), and donor inquiry/contact (RR = 2.41; 95% CI, 1.53-3.80), but not total transplants (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.96-1.61). Significant increased mean knowledge scores postintervention was noted, and most showed favorable trends in pursuit behaviors. Quality across the studies was mixed and sometimes difficult to assess. The biggest limitations were small sample size, selection bias, and short follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions improve measures of LDKT activity; however, current literature is heterogeneous and at risk of selection bias. Prospective studies with diverse patient populations, longer follow-ups, and robust outcomes are needed to inform clinical practice.

Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Purpose of review:

To review an international guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors and provide a commentary on the applicability of the recommendations to the Canadian donor population.

Sources of information:

We reviewed the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors and compared this guideline to the Canadian 2014 Kidney Paired Donation (KPD) Protocol for Participating Donors.

Methods:

A working group was formed consisting of members from the Canadian Society of Transplantation and the Canadian Society of Nephrology. Members were selected to have representation from across Canada and in various subspecialties related to living kidney donation, including nephrology, surgery, transplantation, pediatrics, and ethics.

Key findings:

Many of the KDIGO Guideline recommendations align with the KPD Protocol recommendations. Canadian researchers have contributed to much of the evidence on donor evaluation and outcomes used to support the KDIGO Guideline recommendations.

Limitations:

Certain outcomes and risk assessment tools have yet to be validated in the Canadian donor population.

Implications:

Living kidney donors should be counseled on the risks of postdonation outcomes given recent evidence, understanding the limitations of the literature with respect to its generalizability to the Canadian donor population.

Early Hypertension and Diabetes After Living Kidney Donation: A National Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease, with hypertension and diabetes as the predominant causes. In this study, we sought to better understand the timeline when these diseases occur, focusing on the early postdonation period.

METHODS

We studied 41 260 living kidney donors in the United States between 2008 and 2014 from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and modeled incidence rates and risk factors for hypertension and diabetes.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, there were 74, 162, and 310 cases, respectively, of hypertension per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y, adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.51), male (aIRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.50), had higher body mass index (per 5 units, aIRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.43), and were related to their recipient (first-degree relative: aIRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; spouse: aIRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66) were more likely to develop hypertension, whereas donors who were Hispanic/Latino were less likely (aIRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, there were 2, 6, and 15 cases of diabetes per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y: aIRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11-1.82), had higher body mass index (per 5 units: aIRR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21), and were Hispanic/Latino (aIRR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.14-5.26) were more likely to develop diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national study, new-onset diabetes was rare, but 3% of donors developed hypertension within 2 years of nephrectomy. These findings reaffirm that disease pathways for kidney failure differ by donor phenotype and estimate the population most at-risk for later kidney failure.

Health Professional-Identified Barriers to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) has several advantages over deceased donor kidney transplantation. Yet rates of living donation are declining in Canada and there exists significant interprovincial variability. Efforts to improve living donation tend to focus on the patient and barriers identified at their level, such as not knowing how to ask for a kidney or lack of education. These efforts favor those who have the means and the support to find living donors. Thus, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-organized workshop recommended that education efforts to understand and remove barriers should focus on health professionals (HPs). Despite this, little attention has been paid to what they identify as barriers to discussing LDKT with their patients.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore HP-identified barriers to discuss living donation with patients in 3 provinces of Canada with low (Quebec), moderate (Ontario), and high (British Columbia) rates of LDKT.

DESIGN

This study consists of an interpretive descriptive approach as it enables to move beyond description and inform clinical practice.

SETTING

Purposive criterion and quota sampling were used to recruit HPs from Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia who are involved in the care of patients with kidney disease and/or with transplant coordination.

PATIENTS

Not applicable.

MEASUREMENTS

Semistructured interviews were conducted. The interview guide was developed based on a preliminary analytical framework and a review of the literature.

METHODS

Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data stemming from the interviews. The coding process comprised of a deductive and inductive approach, and the use of a qualitative analysis software (NVivo 11). Following this, themes were identified and developed. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was obtained. In total, we conducted 16 telephone interviews as thematic saturation was attained.

RESULTS

Six predominant themes emerged: (1) lack of communication between transplant and dialysis teams, (2) absence of referral guidelines, (3) role perception and lack of multidisciplinary involvement, (4) HP's lack of information and training, (5) negative attitudes of some HP toward LDKT, (6) patient-level barriers as defined by the HP. HPs did mention patients' attitudes and some characteristics as the main barriers to discussions about living donation; this was noted in all provinces. HPs from Ontario and British Columbia indicated multiple strategies being implemented to address some of these barriers. Those from Ontario mentioned strategies that center on the core principles of provincial-level standardization, while those from British Columbia center on engaging the entire multidisciplinary team and improved role perception. We noted a dearth of such efforts in Quebec; however, efforts around education and promotion, while tentative, have emerged.

LIMITATIONS

Social desirability and selection bias. Our analysis might not be applicable to other provinces.

CONCLUSIONS

HPs involved with the referral and coordination of transplantation play a major role in access to LDKT. We have identified challenges they face when discussing living donation with their patients that warrant further assessment and research to inform policy change.