The impact of country reimbursement programmes on living kidney donations

A scoping review of nonmedical barriers to living donor liver transplant

This study aims to identify and categorize nonmedical barriers encountered by recipients, donors, and health care providers in the context of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Liver transplantation is vital for individuals with liver failure, yet high mortality rates on the transplant waitlist persist. LDLT was introduced to address deceased donor organ shortages; however, its adoption varies widely across regions, prompting the need to explore barriers hindering its implementation. The scoping review employed inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies focusing on nonmedical barriers to LDLT in both adult and pediatric populations. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies were considered, covering the period from January 2005 to February 2023. The review's search strategy was conducted in the Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases. Studies meeting the criteria were assessed for their characteristics and findings, which were synthesized into recipient, donor, and provider-level barriers. Among 2394 initially screened articles, 17 studies were eligible for inclusion. Recipient-level barriers encompassed systemic disparities in access, limited social support, immigration status, and inadequate awareness of LDLT. Donor-level barriers involved surgery-related risks, recovery time concerns, financial burdens, and religious beliefs. Provider-level barriers highlighted institutional support inadequacies and specialized surgeon shortages. The scoping review underscores nonmedical barriers to LDLT across recipient, donor, and provider levels. These barriers include socioeconomic disparities, information gaps, and inadequate institutional support. The findings underscore the need for comprehensive national efforts to raise awareness about LDLT and provide essential financial support.

Challenges to establishing and maintaining kidney transplantation programs in developing countries: What are the coping strategies?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the optimal form of renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal diseases. However, this health service is not available to all patients, especially in developing countries. The deceased donor KT programs are mostly absent, and the living donor KT centers are scarce. Single-center studies presenting experiences from developing countries usually report a variety of challenges. This review addresses these challenges and the opposing strategies by reviewing the single-center experiences of developing countries. The financial challenges hamper the infrastructural and material availability, coverage of transplant costs, and qualification of medical personnel. The sociocultural challenges influence organ donation, equity of beneficence, and regular follow-up work. Low interests and motives for transplantation may result from high medicolegal responsibilities in KT practice, intense potential psychosocial burdens, complex qualification protocols, and low productivity or compensation for KT practice. Low medical literacy about KT advantages is prevalent among clinicians, patients, and the public. The inefficient organizational and regulatory oversight is translated into inefficient healthcare systems, absent national KT programs and registries, uncoordinated job descriptions and qualification protocols, uncoordinated on-site investigations with regulatory constraints, and the prevalence of commercial KT practices. These challenges resulted in noticeable differences between KT services in developed and developing countries. The coping strategies can be summarized in two main mechanisms: The first mechanism is maximizing the available resources by increasing the rates of living kidney donation, promoting the expertise of medical personnel, reducing material consumption, and supporting the establishment and maintenance of KT programs. The latter warrants the expansion of the public sector and the elimination of non-ethical KT practices. The second mechanism is recruiting external resources, including financial, experience, and training agreements.

Use of Federal Reimbursement for Living Donor Costs by Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Implications for Disparities in Access to Living Donor Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Minority race, ethnicity, and financial barriers are associated with lower rates of living donor (LD) kidney transplantation (LDKT). Financial reimbursement for LD costs may impact social determinants of health and, therefore, impact disparities in access to LDKT.

METHODS

Among US LDKTs, we studied associations between racial and ethnic minority status and utilization of the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC), a means-tested reimbursement program for nonmedical LD costs. We analyzed demographic, clinical, income, and survey data from NLDAC and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2022) to identify predictors of NLDAC utilization.

RESULTS

Among 70 069 US LDKTs, 6093 NLDAC applicants were identified (9% of US LDKTs). Racial and ethnic minorities were over-represented in NLDAC-supported LDKTs compared with non-NLDAC US LDKTs (Black donors 12% versus 9%; Black recipients 15% versus 12%; Hispanic donors 21% versus 14%; Hispanic recipients 23% versus 15%; all P < 0.001). Among preemptive transplants, use of NLDAC by donors to Hispanic recipients (11%) was nearly twice as high as that of non-Hispanic recipients (6%) (P < 0.001). At time of NLDAC application, 72% stated NLDAC "will make it possible" to donate; higher proportions of minority applicants agreed (Black 80%, White 70%, P < 0.001; Hispanic 79%, non-Hispanic 70%, P < 0.001). Racial and ethnic minority-concordant transplants were significantly more likely to use NLDAC (donor/recipient: Black/Black risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.85, other/other OR 2.59, Hispanic/Hispanic OR 1.53; all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction of LD financial barriers may increase access to LDKT, particularly in racial and ethnic minority communities.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 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 Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.

An experimental test of whether financial incentives constitute undue inducement in decision-making

Around the world, laws limit the incentives that can be paid for transactions such as human research participation, egg donation or gestational surrogacy. A key reason is concerns about 'undue inducement'-the influential but empirically untested hypothesis that incentives can cause harm by distorting individual decision-making. Here I present two experiments (n = 671 and n = 406), including one based on a highly visceral transaction (eating insects). Incentives caused biased information search-participants offered a higher incentive to comply more often sought encouragement to do so. However, I demonstrate theoretically that such behaviour does not prove that incentives have harmful effects; it is consistent with Bayesian rationality. Empirically, although a substantial minority of participants made bad decisions, incentives did not magnify them in a way that would suggest allowing a transaction but capping incentives. Under the conditions of this experiment, there was no evidence that higher incentives could undermine welfare for transactions that are permissible at low incentives.

Factors influencing deceased organ donation rates in OECD countries: a panel data analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate factors with a significant influence on deceased organ donation rates in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and determine their relative importance. It seeks to provide the necessary data to facilitate the development of more efficient strategies for improving deceased organ donation rates.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Publicly available secondary annual data.

PARTICIPANTS

The study includes 36 OECD countries as panel members for data analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Multivariable panel data regression analysis was employed, encompassing data from 2010 to 2018 for all investigated variables in the included countries.

RESULTS

The following variables had a significant influence on deceased organ donation rates: 'opt-in' system (β=-4.734, p<0.001, ref: 'opt-out' system), only donation after brain death (DBD) donors allowed (β=-4.049, p=0.002, ref: both DBD and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors allowed), number of hospital beds per million population (pmp) (β=0.002, p<0.001), total healthcare employment pmp (β=-0.00012, p=0.012), World Giving Index (β=0.124, p=0.008), total tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product (β=0.312, p=0.009) and percentage of population aged ≥65 years (β=0.801, p<0.001) as well as high education population in percentage (β=0.118, p=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the promotion of socioeconomic factors with a positive significant impact on deceased organ donation rates, the following policies have been shown to significantly increase rates of deceased organ donation, which could be further actively promoted: the adoption of an 'opt-out' system with presumed consent for deceased organ donation and the legal authorisation of both DBD and DCD for transplantation.

A machine-learning approach to estimating public intentions to become a living kidney donor in England: Evidence from repeated cross-sectional survey data

Background

Living kidney organ donors offer a cost-effective alternative to deceased organ donation. They enable patients with life-threatening conditions to receive grafts that would otherwise not be available, thereby creating space for other patients waiting for organs and contributing to reducing overall waiting times for organs. There is an emerging consensus that an increase in living donation could contribute even more than deceased donation to reducing inequalities in organ donation between different population sub-groups in England. Increasing living donation is thus a priority for National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Using the random forest model, a machine learning (ML) approach, this study analyzed eight waves of repeated cross-sectional survey data collected from 2017 to 2021 (n = 14,278) as part of the organ donation attitudinal tracker survey commissioned by NHSBT in England to identify and help predict key factors that inform public intentions to become living donors.

Results

Overall, around 58.8% of the population would consider donating their kidney to a family member (50.5%), a friend (28%) or an unknown person (13.2%). The ML algorithm identified important factors that influence intentions to become a living kidney donor. They include, in reducing order of importance, support for organ donation, awareness of organ donation publicity campaigns, gender, age, occupation, religion, number of children in the household, and ethnic origin. Support for organ donation, awareness of public campaigns, and being younger were all positively associated with predicted propensity for living donation. The variable importance scores show that ethnic origin and religion were less important than the other variables in predicting living donor intention.

Conclusion

Factors influencing intentions to become a living donor are complex and highly individual in nature. Machine learning methods that allow for complex interactions between characteristics can be helpful in explaining these decisions. This work has identified important factors and subgroups that have higher propensity for living donation. Interventions should target both potential live donors and recipients. Research is needed to explore the extent to which these preferences are malleable to better understand what works and in which contexts to increase live organ donation.

Perception regarding live kidney donation in the general population of South Korea

This study aimed to know how the general population recognizes live kidney donation in Korea. Participants were randomly selected from the general population after proportional allocation by region, sex, and age. Selected participants received a questionnaire that included demographic information, socioeconomic and marital statuses, prior recognition of live donor kidney transplantation, expected changes after donation, and the need for support after donor nephrectomy. Among the 1,000 participants from the web-based survey, 83.8% answered they fully understood living donor kidney transplantation, 81.1% knew about them, and 51.1% were willing to donate. Various complications after nephrectomy and deterioration in health after donation were the most significant reasons for those reluctant to donate. Most agreed that the government should provide social and economic support to living kidney donors, especially after exposure to the description of donor nephrectomy. Financial support, including surgery and regular medical check-up costs, was the most preferred government support. The Korean general population seemed aware of the value and safety of kidney donation, although only half of them were willing to donate due to concerns about possible complications. Most participants agreed on social and economic support for living kidney donors, especially surgery-related costs.

Motivators and Barriers to Living Donor Kidney Transplant as Perceived by Past and Potential Donors

Background:

For patients with end-stage kidney disease, living donor kidney transplant is the treatment of choice due to improved patient outcomes, longer graft survival, and reduced expenses compared with other forms of renal replacement therapy. However, organ shortage remains a challenge, and living donation rates have stagnated in recent years, particularly among men.

Objective:

To understand the motivators and barriers for past and potential living kidney transplant donors and inform policy and practice changes that support donors in the future.

Methods:

Past and potential living donors in British Columbia, Canada in the preceding 2 years were surveyed. Motivators and barriers were examined in 5 categories: family pressures and domestic responsibilities, finances, the recovery process, complications, and the transplant evaluation process. Participants ranked statements in each category on a Likert-type scale.

Results:

A total of 138 responses were collected. In both women and men, policies that address family and domestic responsibilities and finances were most strongly identified as motivators to donate. A large proportion of women and men reported that guaranteed job security (47% women and 38% of men), paid time off (51% of women and 42% of men), reimbursement of lost wages (49% of women and 38% of men), and protections to guarantee no impact on future insurability (62% of women and 52% of men) were significant motivators to donate. Timely and efficient medical evaluation was considered to be an important motivator for donation, with 52% of men and 43% of women reporting support for a “fast-track” option for evaluation to allow for a more rapid evaluation process. Median barrier and motivator scores were similar between women and men.

Conclusion:

Policies to decrease financial burden, ensure job security, improve childcare support, and offer a fast-track medical evaluation may motivate potential living kidney donors, irrespective of gender.

Economic Impact of Donating a Kidney on Living Donors: A Korean Cohort Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Although existing studies have reported adverse health outcomes after kidney donation, its socioeconomic impact on living donors requires further study.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective observational cohort study including a matched comparison group.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

1,285 living kidney donors from 7 tertiary hospitals between 2003 and 2016, and a matched comparison group consisting of the same number of health screening examinees with similar baseline clinical characteristics and socioeconomic status. All participants were receiving Korean national health insurance.

EXPOSURE

Kidney donation as reflected in the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS) database.

OUTCOME

Changes in household economic status estimated by Korean national health insurance fees and changes in employment status reflected in the NHIS database.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The outcomes of the donor group and matched control group were compared annually using multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for clinical and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The median ages of the donors and matched controls were 45 and 46 years, respectively; 44.6% of both groups were male. Compared to the comparison group, living donors were at higher risk of being unemployed or losing employment during the first 2 years after donation (eg, first-year loss of employment: odds ratio (OR), 2.27 [95% CI, 1.55-3.33]); however, this association did not persist. Donors also had a significantly lower odds of improvement in economic status (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47-0.71]) and a higher odds of deterioration in financial status (OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.23-1.93]) in the first year after transplantation and subsequently.

LIMITATIONS

Unmeasured differences between donors and matched controls creating residual selection bias and confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donors may suffer loss of employment and poor economic status after their voluntary donation. The socioeconomic impact on these donors should be considered in conjunction with the potential long-term adverse health outcomes after donation.