Searching for the optimal living liver donor psychosocial evaluation

A Prospective Study of the Reliability and Validity of the Live Donor Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND

The psychosocial evaluation is an important part of the live organ donor evaluation process, yet this is not standardized across institutions.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to prospectively test the reliability and validity of a semistructured psychosocial evaluation tool that was recently developed and reported in the literature (the Live Donor Assessment Tool [LDAT]).

METHODS

A total of 248 live donor candidates who presented for evaluation were invited to participate in a study that involved the LDAT being scored as part of the standard psychosocial evaluation process; 222 provided informed consent. Evaluations were conducted by staff experienced with psychosocial evaluation of living donors and trained in the use of the LDAT. Furthermore, 123 donor candidates were evaluated twice, as per routine standard of care, and had 2 LDATs administered. Reliability of the LDAT was assessed by calculating the internal consistency of the LDAT items and inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed by comparing LDAT scores across the risk-group categories (the traditional outcome designation of the psychosocial evaluation) and in 86 eventual donors, associations between LDAT scores, and indicators of psychosocial outcomes post-donation.

RESULTS

The LDAT was found to have good internal consistency, strong inter-rater reliability, and showed signs of validity: LDAT scores differentiated the traditional risk-group categories, and a significant association between LDAT score and treatment adherence post-donation was revealed.

CONCLUSIONS

The LDAT demonstrated good reliability and validity, but future research on the LDAT and the ability to implement the LDAT across institutions is warranted.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

Preventive intervention for living donor psychosocial outcomes: feasibility and efficacy in a randomized controlled trial

There are no evidence-based interventions to prevent adverse psychosocial consequences after living donation. We conducted a single-site randomized controlled trial to examine the postdonation impact of a preventive intervention utilizing motivational interviewing (MI) to target a major risk factor for poor psychosocial outcomes, residual ambivalence (i.e. lingering hesitation and uncertainty) about donating. Of 184 prospective kidney or liver donors, 131 screened positive for ambivalence; 113 were randomized to (a) the MI intervention, (b) an active comparison condition (health education) or (c) standard care only before donation. Ambivalence was reassessed postintervention (before donation). Primary trial outcomes-psychosocial variables in somatic, psychological and family interpersonal relationship domains-were assessed at 6 weeks and 3 months postdonation. MI subjects showed the greatest decline in ambivalence (p = 0.050). On somatic outcomes, by 3 months postdonation MI subjects reported fewer physical symptoms (p = 0.038), lower rates of fatigue (p = 0.021) and pain (p = 0.016), shorter recovery times (p = 0.041) and fewer unexpected medical problems (p = 0.023). Among psychological and interpersonal outcomes, they had a lower rate of anxiety symptoms (p = 0.046) and fewer unexpected family-related problems (p = 0.045). They did not differ on depression, feelings about donation or family relationship quality. The findings suggest that the intervention merits testing in a larger, multisite trial.

Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing

CONTEXT

Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

METHODS

Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation).

RESULTS

Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.

The Transplanted Organ Questionnaire: a validation study

OBJECTIVE

The transplanted organ is a key element of the recipient's daily life. But its representations are neither spontaneously expressed by patients, nor taken into account by transplantation professionals. Our objective was to assess specifically the transplanted organ representations in liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, 134 liver transplanted (LT) patients were assessed using the Transplanted Organ Questionnaire (TOQ), a new specifically designed questionnaire, fulfilled 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36months post-LT.

RESULTS

The TOQ comprised three dimensions, explaining 44% of the total variance: Donor (21.3%) measuring the recipients' concerns about the donor, Positive attitude towards the transplant (13.4%), and Psychological Rejection (9.3%), measuring a lack of incorporation of the transplant. These three dimensions have a high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha: 0.91, 0.76 and 0.56) and are stable over time. Older recipients had more concern about the Donor than younger ones. As compared to other medical primary diagnoses, viral hepatitis was associated with higher scores on the subscales Positive attitude towards the transplant and Psychological Rejection. Interestingly, Psychological rejection predicted increased long term risk of death (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44, P=.046) under multivariate Cox analyses, independently from other variables.

CONCLUSION

The transplanted organ representations as specifically assessed by the Transplanted Organ Questionnaire (TOQ) are relevant in liver transplant recipients. Interventions based on the transplant representations after LT should be assessed in further studies. Indeed, preventing psychological rejection of the transplanted organ and facilitating its psychological incorporation may decrease long term mortality after LT.