Perceptions of Psychosocial and Ethical Issues and the Psychological Characteristics of Donors in the Clinical Setting of Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

There are several psychosocial and ethical issues surrounding the decision to be a living kidney donor. The present study aimed to determine the perceptions of psychosocial and ethical issues that living kidney donors may have, and analyze their psychological characteristics.

METHODS

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 donors. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the thematic elements of the transcripts. All procedures were approved by the relevant review board.

RESULTS

Four main categories were identified: Awareness of family dynamics, barriers to a proper understanding, contrasting psychological effects of recipient presence in clinical practice, insufficient information explained in informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Donors felt that they took on the "role as a care giver" for the recipient and were less aware of themselves as patients. This is a new concept that has not been shown in previous studies. Donors exist within the recipient and family, and the range of their autonomy may go beyond the traditional concept of autonomy and be rooted in relational autonomy. This study suggested that medical treatment in the presence of the recipient promotes the relational autonomy of the donor.

The Mount Sinai Patient-Centered Preoperative Criteria Meant to Optimize Outcomes Are Less of a Barrier to Care Than WPATH SOC 7 Criteria Before Transgender-Specific Surgery

Objectives: With expanding coverage of gender-affirming care in the United States, many insurers default to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care 7 (SOC 7) to establish eligibility requirements for surgery coverage. Informed by bariatric and transplant surgery evaluation models, the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery (CTMS) developed patient-centered criteria to assess readiness for surgery, focusing on concerns that could impair recovery. To make recommendations for the next version of the WPATH SOC, SOC 8, we compared Mount Sinai patient-centered surgical readiness criteria with the WPATH SOC 7 criteria. Methods: Data were extracted from a deidentified data set developed as part the quality dashboard for CTMS. The data set included all patients seeking vaginoplasty who were evaluated by a single mental health provider, from July 2016 through August 2018, and who completed the full CTMS assessment. The number of patients eligible for surgery based on the Mount Sinai CTMS criteria was compared with the number of patients eligible for surgery according to WPATH SOC 7 criteria. Results: Of 139 patients identified, 63 (45%) were ready for surgery immediately based on the Mount Sinai patient-centered model. By contrast, only 21 (15%) out of the 139 met criteria for surgery based on WPATH SOC 7. Fifty patients (40%) were ready for surgery as per Mount Sinai patient-centered readiness review but not WPATH criteria. Conclusion: An assessment designed to better prepare patients for surgery may also result in fewer barriers to care than existing criteria used by insurance companies in the United States.

Living Donors: Altruism and Feeling Forgotten

OBJECTIVES

Living donors endure several challenges throughout the organ donation process. Physically related effects are further compounded by social and emotional challenges. To date, no previous studies have addressed the motives and impact of organ donations from living donors in Jordan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a qualitative exploratory study to understand the experiences of a random sample of genetically and legally related living donors in Jordan. Participants were identified through the Directorate of the Jordanian Center for Organ Transplantation database. Our sample included Jordanians and non-Jordanians who donated a kidney or liver. Most data were collected by phone interviews with living donors; some donors were personally interviewed. Donors were asked about their experiences during the periods before and after the process of donation, including their feelings, emotions, and motives. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

In total, 360 participants (337 kidney and 23 liver donors; 290 Jordanians and 70 non-Jordanians) completed the interview. The time from donation to interview ranged from 14 days to 7 years. The period before donation was characterized by fear and confusion. After donation, most donors described a positive emotional state that was marked by selfsatisfaction, pride, and increased support of organ donation. However, many stated that they felt forgotten. Most donors were motivated by social solidarity, and others invoked the role of their religious beliefs as the main motive. Other motives included improving the recipient's life and fear that patients would be abandoned.

CONCLUSIONS

The emotional distress of living donors during the predonation period emphasizes the need for social and psychological support in addition to medical evaluations. Donors who had positive experiences with donation can play a role in advocating for donation. Finally, in Jordan, social solidarity and religious beliefs are the most important factors that motivate donation.

Post-donation satisfaction in kidney transplantation: a survey of living donors in Japan

Background

No studies using a valid, standardized method to measure post-donation satisfaction levels among living kidney donors (LKDs) have been published.

Methods

Donor satisfaction levels were measured using the Japanese version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8), a validated, self-report questionnaire. To identify factors related to post-donation satisfaction levels, we compared donors’ sociodemographic and psychological characteristics and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), as well as recipients’ clinical characteristics and SF-36 scores between donors with and without low satisfaction. In addition, donors’ perceptions of the donation results and transplant procedure were assessed using measures that we developed.

Results

The mean (standard deviation [SD]) CSQ-8 score for the 195 participants was 26.9 (3.4). Twenty-nine (14.9%) respondents with total scores < 1 SD below the mean CSQ-8 score were placed into the low satisfaction group. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that lower perceptions of receiving adequate information prior to transplantation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.079–0.379; p < 0.001), lower optimism according to the Life Orientation Test (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.045–1.470; p = 0.014), and increased serum creatinine levels in the paired recipient (OR = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.250–1.011; p = 0.054) independently increased the odds of having less satisfaction with donation.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that careful pre-donation education and more detailed informed consent may be needed, especially in LKDs with low constitutional optimism.

Multicenter investigation of the reliability and validity of the live donor assessment tool as an enhancement to the psychosocial evaluation of living donors

The live donor assessment tool (LDAT) is the first psychosocial assessment tool developed to standardize live donor psychosocial evaluations. A multicenter study was conducted to explore reliability and validity of the LDAT and determine its ability to enhance the psychosocial evaluation beyond its center of origin. Four transplant programs participated, each with their own team of evaluators and unique demographics. Liver and kidney living donors (LDs) undergoing both standard psychosocial evaluation and LDAT from June 2015 to September 2016 were studied. LDAT interrater reliability, associations between LDAT scores and psychosocial evaluation outcome, and psychosocial outcomes postdonation were tested. 386 LD evaluations were compared and had a mean LDAT score of 67.34 ± 7.57. In 140 LDs with two LDATs by different observers, the interrater scores correlated (r = 0.63). LDAT scores at each center and overall stratified to the conventional grouping of psychosocial risk level. LDAT scores of 131 subjects who proceeded with donation were expectedly lower in LDs requiring postdonation counseling (t = -2.78, P = .01). The LDAT had good reliability between raters and predicted outcome of the psychosocial evaluation across centers. It can be used to standardize language among clinicians to communicate psychosocial risk of LD candidates and assist teams when anticipating postdonation psychosocial needs.

The ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT): from 'what' to 'how' of psychosocial screening - a pilot study

Thorough psychosocial screening of donor candidates is required in order to minimize potential negative consequences and to strive for optimal safety within living donation programmes. We aimed to develop an evidence-based tool to standardize the psychosocial screening process. Key concepts of psychosocial screening were used to structure our tool: motivation and decision-making, personal resources, psychopathology, social resources, ethical and legal factors and information and risk processing. We (i) discussed how each item per concept could be measured, (ii) reviewed and rated available validated tools, (iii) where necessary developed new items, (iv) assessed content validity and (v) pilot-tested the new items. The resulting ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT) consists of a selection of validated questionnaires (28 items in total), a semi-structured interview (43 questions) and a Red Flag Checklist. We outline optimal procedures and conditions for implementing this tool. The EPAT and user manual are available from the authors. Use of this tool will standardize the psychosocial screening procedure ensuring that no psychosocial issues are overlooked and ensure that comparable selection criteria are used and facilitate generation of comparable psychosocial data on living donor candidates.

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.

A psychosocial evaluation process for living liver donors: the University of Rochester model

OBJECTIVE

The donation of livers by living donors entails complex processes, both surgically and psychosocially, potentially involving risks in both domains. Thorough psychosocial evaluation is necessary to minimize those risks, yet little has been written about the donor assessment process. This article describes one such process, utilized by a transplant program in upstate New York.

METHOD

Donor candidates undergo multiple psychosocial interviews early in the overall transplant evaluation process. Evaluators subsequently meet as a group, along with an independent ethicist, to determine psychosocial candidacy prior to final medical/surgical clearance.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2007, 416 donor candidates initiated and/or underwent full evaluation, resulting in a 17.5% surgery and 55.5% exclusion rate among those individuals. Of those ruled out, 20.8% were for (medical or psychosocial) reasons associated with the recipient, and 8.7% were for donor-related psychosocial issues.

CONCLUSION

Given the primacy ofpsychosocial and ethical issues in living liver donor candidate evaluation, the multiple interview process, followed by team discussion and overseen by an ethicist removed from other transplant program functions, has advantages as a donor assessment model.

Similarity not favorability: the role of donor prototypes in predicting willingness to donate organs while living

Using an extended Prototype/Willingness Model, we examined the predictors of willingness to donate an organ to a partner/family member and a stranger while living. A questionnaire assessed university students' (N = 284) attitudes, subjective norm, prototype favorability, prototype similarity, moral norm, and willingness to donate organs in each recipient scenario. All variables, except prototype favorability, predicted willingness to donate organs in both situations. Future strategies should emphasise perceived approval from important others for living donation, the consistency of living donation with one's own morals, and encourage perceptions of similarity between oneself and living donors to increase acceptance of living donation.