Predicting Kidney Transplant Evaluation Non-attendance

Non-attendance to kidney transplant evaluation (KTE) appointments is a barrier to optimal care for those with kidney failure. We examined the medical and socio-cultural factors that predict KTE non-attendance to identify opportunities for integrated medical teams to intervene. Patients scheduled for KTE between May, 2015 and June, 2018 completed an interview before their initial KTE appointment. The interview assessed various social determinants of health, including demographic (e.g., income), medical (e.g. co-morbidities), transplant knowledge, cultural (e.g., medical mistrust), and psychosocial (e.g., social support) factors. We used multiple logistic regression analysis to determine the strongest predictor of KTE non-attendance. Our sample (N = 1119) was 37% female, 76% non-Hispanic White, median age 59.4 years (IQR 49.2-67.5). Of note, 142 (13%) never attended an initial KTE clinic appointment. Being on dialysis predicted higher odds of KTE non-attendance (OR 1.76; p = .02; 64% of KTE attendees on dialysis vs. 77% of non-attendees on dialysis). Transplant and nephrology teams should consider working collaboratively with dialysis units to better coordinate care, (e.g., resources to attend appointment or outreach to emphasize the importance of transplant) adjusting the KTE referral and evaluation process to address access issues (e.g., using tele-health) and encouraging partnership with clinical psychologists to promote quality of life for those on dialysis.

"You don't know what you don't know": A qualitative study of informational needs of patients, family members, and living donors to inform transplant system metrics

INTRODUCTION

Informational needs and potential use of transplant metrics, especially among patients, remain understudied and a critical component of the transplant community's commitment to patient-centered care. We sought to understand the perspectives and needs of patients, family members/caregivers, living donors, and deceased donor family members.

METHODS

We examined decision-making experiences and perspectives on the needs of these stakeholder groups for data about the national transplant system among 58 participants of 14 focus groups and 6 interviews.

RESULTS

Three major themes emerged: 1) informational priorities and unmet needs (transplantation system processes, long-term outcomes data, prelisting data, patient-centered outcomes, and ability to compare centers and regions); 2) challenges obtaining relevant and trustworthy information (patient burden and effort, challenges with medical jargon, and difficulty finding trustworthy information); and 3) burden of facing the unknown (stress and anxiety leading to difficulty processing information, challenges facing the transplant journey when you "don't know what you don't know").

CONCLUSION

Patient, family member, and living donor participation in shared decision-making has been limited by inadequate access to patient-centered information. New metrics and patient-facing data presentations should address these content gaps using best practices to improve understanding and support shared decision-making.

Protocol for the AKT-MP trial: Access to Kidney Transplantation in Minority Populations

Background

Kidney transplant (KT) is the optimal treatment for kidney failure (KF), and although completion of KT evaluation is an essential step in gaining access to transplantation, the process is lengthy, time consuming, and burdensome. Furthermore, despite similar referral rates to non-Hispanic Whites, both Hispanic/Latinos and American Indians are less likely to be wait-listed or to undergo KT.

Methods

The Access to Kidney Transplantation in Minority Populations (AKT-MP) Trial compares two patient-centered methods to facilitate KT evaluation: kidney transplant fast track (KTFT), a streamlined KT evaluation process; and peer navigators (PN), a peer-assisted evaluation program that incorporates motivational interviewing. This pragmatic randomized trial will use a comparative effectiveness approach to assess whether KTFT or PN can help patients overcome barriers to transplant listing. We will randomly assign patients to the two conditions. We will track participants' medical records and conduct surveys prior to their initial evaluation clinic visit and again after they complete or discontinue evaluation.

Conclusion

Our aims are to (1) compare KTFT and PN to assess improvements in kidney transplant (KT) related outcomes and cost effectiveness; (2) examine how each approach effects changes in cultural/contextual factors, KT concerns, KT knowledge, and KT ambivalence; and (3) develop a framework for widespread implementation of either approach. The results of this trial will provide key information for facilitating the evaluation process, improving patient care, and decreasing disparities in KT.

Pretransplant Patient Education in Solid-organ Transplant: A Narrative Review

Education for pretransplant, solid-organ recipient candidates aims to improve knowledge and understanding about the transplant process, outcomes, and potential complications to support informed, shared decision-making to reduce fears and anxieties about transplant, inform expectations, and facilitate adjustment to posttransplant life. In this review, we summarize novel pretransplant initiatives and approaches to educate solid-organ transplant recipient candidates. First, we review approaches that may be common to all solid-organ transplants, then we summarize interventions specific to kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplant. We describe evidence that emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary approaches to transplant education. We also summarize initiatives that consider online (eHealth) and mobile (mHealth) solutions. Finally, we highlight education initiatives that support racialized or otherwise marginalized communities to improve equitable access to solid-organ transplant. A considerable amount of work has been done in solid-organ transplant since the early 2000s with promising results. However, many studies on education for pretransplant recipient candidates involve relatively small samples and nonrandomized designs and focus on short-term surrogate outcomes. Overall, many of these studies have a high risk of bias. Frequently, interventions assessed are not well characterized or they are combined with administrative and data-driven initiatives into multifaceted interventions, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of the education component on outcomes. In the future, well-designed studies rigorously assessing well-defined surrogate and clinical outcomes will be needed to evaluate the impact of many promising initiatives.

Medication, Healthcare Follow-up, and Lifestyle Nonadherence: Do They Share the Same Risk Factors?

Barriers to medication adherence may differ from barriers in other domains of adherence. In this study, we assessed the association between pre-kidney transplantation (KT) factors with nonadherent behaviors in 3 different domains post-KT.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study with patient interviews at initial KT evaluation (baseline-nonadherence predictors in sociodemographic, condition-related, health system, and patient-related psychosocial factors) and at ≈6 mo post-KT (adherence outcomes: medications, healthcare follow-up, and lifestyle behavior). All patients who underwent KT at our institution and had ≈6-mo follow-up interview were included in the study. We assessed nonadherence in 3 different domains using continuous composite measures derived from the Health Habit Survey. We built multiple linear and logistic regression models, adjusting for baseline characteristics, to predict adherence outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 173 participants. Black race (mean difference in adherence score: -0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.12 to -0.32) and higher income (mean difference: -0.34; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.02) predicted lower medication adherence. Experience of racial discrimination predicted lower adherence (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.76) and having internal locus of control predicted better adherence (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.06-2.03) to healthcare follow-up. In the lifestyle domain, higher education (mean difference: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.21-1.29) and lower body mass index (mean difference: -0.08; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.03) predicted better adherence to dietary recommendations, but no risk factors predicted exercise adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Different nonadherence behaviors may stem from different motivation and risk factors (eg, clinic nonattendance due to experiencing racial discrimination). Thus adherence intervention should be individualized to target at-risk population (eg, bias reduction training for medical staff to improve patient adherence to clinic visit).

Measuring Patients' Level of Knowledge Regarding Kidney Transplantation in Eastern Hungary

Adequate knowledge is needed to make the correct decision regarding kidney transplantation. The purpose of this study was to measure the demographic, sociologic, economic, and cultural factors that may influence patients' decision-making regarding kidney transplantation and to explore patients' knowledge of renal replacement therapies. A total of 254 end-stage renal disease patients (predialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and hemodialysis) from 8 dialysis centers in eastern Hungary participated in our study. We developed a questionnaire that measures patients' knowledge of renal replacement therapies and the role of sociodemographic, economic, and cultural factors that may influence their knowledge. Factors influencing the knowledge scores were evaluated using a multivariate linear regression adjusted for 8 factors. We found a significant correlation between education level and knowledge score, where patients with greater education (greater than high school: β = 3.003; P < .001; high school: β = 1.906; P < .001) achieved higher knowledge scores than those without. Moreover, patients with a previous kidney transplant (β = -2.111; P < .001) had greater knowledge in the field. Our study identified a risk group where targeted, personalized patient education is essential.

Does Racial Disparity in Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Persist After Accounting for Social Determinants of Health?

BACKGROUND

African Americans (AA) have lower rates of kidney transplantation (KT) compared with Whites (WH), even after adjusting for demographic and medical factors. In this study, we examined whether the racial disparity in KT waitlisting persists after adjusting for social determinants of health (eg, cultural, psychosocial, and knowledge).

METHODS

We prospectively followed a cohort of 1055 patients who were evaluated for KT between 3 of 10 to 10 of 12 and followed through 8 of 18. Participants completed a semistructured telephone interview shortly after their first KT evaluation appointment. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson chi-square tests to examine race differences in the baseline characteristics. We then assessed racial differences in the probability of waitlisting while accounting for all predictors using cumulative incidence curves and Fine and Gray proportional subdistribution hazards models.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the baseline characteristics between non-Hispanic AA and non-Hispanic WH. AA were 25% less likely (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.96) to be waitlisted than WH even after adjusting for medical factors and social determinants of health. In addition, being older, having lower income, public insurance, more comorbidities, and being on dialysis decreased the probability of waitlisting while having more social support and transplant knowledge increased the probability of waitlisting.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial disparity in kidney transplant waitlisting persisted even after adjusting for medical factors and social determinants of health, suggesting the need to identify novel factors that impact racial disparity in transplant waitlisting. Developing interventions targeting cultural and psychosocial factors may enhance equity in access to transplantation.

Unexpected Race and Ethnicity Differences in the US National Veterans Affairs Kidney Transplant Program

BACKGROUND

Racial/ethnic minorities have lower rates of deceased kidney transplantation (DDKT) and living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) in the United States. We examined whether social determinants of health (eg, demographics, cultural, psychosocial, knowledge factors) could account for differences in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Kidney Transplantation (KT) Program.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter longitudinal cohort study of 611 Veterans undergoing evaluation for KT at all National VA KT Centers (2010-2012) using an interview after KT evaluation and tracking participants via medical records through 2017.

RESULTS

Hispanics were more likely to get any KT (subdistribution hazard ratios [SHR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.8 [1.2-2.8]) or DDKT (SHR [95% CI]: 2.0 [1.3-3.2]) than non-Hispanic white in univariable analysis. Social determinants of health, including marital status (SHR [95% CI]: 0.6 [0.4-0.9]), religious objection to LDKT (SHR [95% CI]: 0.6 [0.4-1.0]), and donor preference (SHR [95% CI]: 2.5 [1.2-5.1]), accounted for some racial differences, and changes to Kidney Allocation System policy (SHR [95% CI]: 0.3 [0.2-0.5]) mitigated race differences in DDKT in multivariable analysis. For LDKT, non-Hispanic African American Veterans were less likely to receive an LDKT than non-Hispanic white (SHR [95% CI]: 0.2 [0.0-0.7]), but accounting for age (SHR [95% CI]: 1.0 [0.9-1.0]), insurance (SHR [95% CI]: 5.9 [1.1-33.7]), presenting with a living donor (SHR [95% CI]: 4.1 [1.4-12.3]), dialysis duration (SHR [95% CI]: 0.3 [0.2-0.6]), network of potential donors (SHR [95% CI]: 1.0 [1.0-1.1]), self-esteem (SHR [95% CI]: 0.4 [0.2-0.8]), transplant knowledge (SHR [95% CI]: 1.3 [1.0-1.7]), and changes to Kidney Allocation System policy (SHR [95% CI]: 10.3 [2.5-42.1]) in multivariable analysis eliminated those disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

The VA KT Program does not exhibit the same pattern of disparities in KT receipt as non-VA centers. Transplant centers can use identified risk factors to target patients who may need more support to ensure they receive a transplant.

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.

Associations of perceived information adequacy and knowledge with pursuit of live donor kidney transplants and living donor inquiries among African American transplant candidates

We studied associations between perceived adequacy of live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) information or knowledge with pursuit of LDKT or receipt of live donor inquiries among 300 African American kidney transplant candidates. Participants reported via questionnaire how informed or knowledgeable they felt regarding LDKT. Participants also reported their pursuit of LDKT, categorized as "low" (no discussion with family or friends about LDKT and no identified donor), "intermediate" (discussed LDKT with family but no identified donor) or "high" (discussed LDKT with family and identified a potential donor). We reviewed participants' electronic health records to identify potential donors' transplant center inquiries on participants' behalves. A minority of participants reported they felt "very" or "extremely" well informed about LDKT (39%) or had "a great deal" of LDKT knowledge (38%). Participants perceiving themselves as "very" or "extremely" (vs "not" or "slightly") well informed about LDKT had statistically significantly greater odds of intermediate or high (vs low) pursuit of LDKT (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.71 [1.02-7.17]). Perceived LDKT knowledge was not associated with pursuit of LDKT. Neither perceived information adequacy nor knowledge was associated with living donor inquiries. Efforts to better understand the role of education in the pursuit of LDKT among African American transplant candidates are needed.

Impact of US Public Health Service increased risk deceased donor designation on organ utilization

Under US Public Health Service guidelines, organ donors with risk factors for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), or hepatitis C virus (HCV) are categorized as increased risk donors (IRD). Previous studies have suggested that IRD organs are utilized at lower rates than organs from standard risk donors (SRD), but these studies were conducted prior to universal donor nucleic acid test screening. We conducted risk-adjusted analyses to determine the effect of IRD designation on organ utilization using 2010-2017 data (21 626 heart, 101 160 kidney, 52 714 liver, and 16 219 lung recipients in the United States) from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. There was no significant difference (P < .05) between risk-adjusted utilization rates for IRD vs SRD organs for adult hearts and livers and pediatric kidneys, livers, and lungs. Significantly lower utilization was found among IRD adult kidneys, lungs, and pediatric hearts. Analysis of the proportion of transplanted organs recovered from IRD by facility suggests that a subset of facilities contribute to the underutilization of adult IRD kidneys. Along with revised criteria and nomenclature to identify donors with HIV, HBV, or HCV risk factors, educational efforts to standardize informed consent discussions might improve organ utilization.

Measurement Characteristics of the Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant is the best treatment for most end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, but proportionally few ESRD patients receive kidney transplant. To make an informed choice about whether to pursue kidney transplant, patients must be knowledgeable of its risks and benefits. To reliably and validly measure ESRD patients' kidney transplant knowledge, rigorously tested measures are required. This article describes the development and psychometric testing of the Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation (KART).

METHODS

We administered 17 transplant knowledge items to a sample of 1294 ESRD patients. Item characteristics and scale scores were estimated using an Item Response Theory graded response model. Construct validity was tested by examining differences in scale scores between patients who had spent less than 1 and 1 hour or longer receiving various types of transplant education.

RESULTS

Item Response Theory modeling suggested that 15 items should be retained for the KART. This scale had a marginal reliability of 0.75 and evidenced acceptable reliability (>0.70) across most of its range. Construct validity was supported by the KART's ability to distinguish patients who had spent less than 1 and 1 hour or longer receiving different types of kidney transplant education, including talking to doctors/medical staff (effect size [ES], 0.61; P < 0.001), reading brochures (ES, 0.45; P < 0.001), browsing the internet (ES, 0.56; P < 0.001), and watching videos (ES, 0.56; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The final 15-item KART can be used to determine the kidney transplant knowledge levels of ESRD patients and plan appropriate interventions to ensure informed transplant decision making occurs.

A randomized controlled trial of Explore Transplant at Home to improve transplant knowledge and decision-making for CKD 3-5 patients at Kaiser Permanente Southern California

Background

Five-year survival on dialysis is only 40%, compared to 74% with a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) and 87% with a living donor kidney transplant (LDKT). An American Society of Transplantation (AST) Consensus Conference recommended that patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) Stages 3–5 have the opportunity to learn about and decide which treatment option is right for them, particularly about LDKT. However, early education about LDKT and DDKT outside of transplant centers is inconsistent and often poor, with patients in CKD 3 and 4 and ethnic/racial minorities even less likely to receive it. A new randomized control trial (RCT), in partnership with Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), will assess knowledge gaps and the effectiveness of a supplementary video-guided, print and technology-based education intervention for English- and Spanish-speaking patients in CKD Stages 3, 4, and 5 to increase LDKT knowledge and decision-making. To date, no published LDKT educational interventions have studied such a large and diverse CKD population.

Methods

In this RCT, 1200 English and Spanish-speaking CKD Stage 3–5 patients will be randomly assigned to one of two education conditions: ET@Home or KPSC standard of care education. Randomization will be stratified by CKD stage and primary language spoken. Those in the ET@Home condition will receive brochures, postcards, DVDs, and text messages delivering educational content in modules over a six-month period. Baseline data collection will measure demographics, transplant derailers, and the amount of previous CKD and transplant education they have received. Changes in CKD and transplant knowledge, ability to make an informed decision about transplant, and self-efficacy to pursue LDKT will be captured with surveys administered at baseline and at six months.

Discussion

At the conclusion of the study, investigators will understand key knowledge gaps for patients along the CKD continuum and between patients who speak different languages and have assessed the effectiveness of both English- and Spanish-language supplementary education in increasing KPSC patients’ knowledge about the opportunities for and risks and benefits of LDKT. We hope this program will reduce disparities in access to transplant.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03389932; date registered: 12/26/2017.

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.

Explore Transplant Ontario: Adapting the Explore Transplant Education Program to Facilitate Informed Decision Making About Kidney Transplantation

Purpose:

In this article, we describe a province-wide collaborative project in which we adapted the Explore Transplant (ET) education program for use in Ontario, Canada, to develop Explore Transplant Ontario (ETO). Kidney transplantation (KT), especially living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), is the best treatment for many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), with the best patient survival and quality of life and also reduced health care costs. Yet KT and LDKT are underutilized both internationally and in Canada. Research has demonstrated that patients with ESKD who receive personalized transplant education are more likely to complete the transplant evaluation process and to receive LDKT compared with patients who do not receive this education.

Sources of information:

Research expertise of the lead authors and Medline search of studies assessing the impact of education interventions on access to KT and LDKT.

Methods:

The ET program, developed by Dr Amy Waterman, has been used in thousands of patients with ESKD in the United States to enhance KT and LDKT knowledge. To adapt this program for use in Ontario, we convened a working group, including patient representatives, nephrologists, transplant coordinators, dialysis nurses, and patient educators from all Ontario KT centers and selected dialysis units. In an iterative process concluding in a consensus workshop, the working group reviewed and edited the text of the original ET program and suggested changes to the videos.

Key findings:

The adapted program reflects the Ontario health care environment and responds to the specific needs of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the province. The videos feature Ontario transplant nephrologists, transplant coordinators, and patients, representative of the ethnic diversity in Ontario, sharing their transplant experience and expertise. Despite the changes, ETO is consistent with the quality and style of the original ET program. At the end of this article, we summarize subsequent steps to test and utilize ETO. Those projects, specifically the ETO pilot study and a multicomponent quality improvement initiative to increase utilization of KT and LDKT across Ontario, will be described in full in future papers.

Limitations:

This article describes a provincial initiative; therefore, our findings may not be fully generalizable without further considerations. The adapted education program has not yet been tested in large trial for effectiveness.

Implications:

As a program grounded in the theoretical model of behavior change, ETO places patients with ESKD at the center of a complex process of navigating renal replacement therapy modalities and acknowledges a broad range of patient values, priorities, and states of readiness to pursue KT.

Interviews of living kidney donors to assess donation-related concerns and information-gathering practices

Background

Efforts are underway to improve living kidney donor (LKD) education, but current LKD concerns and information-gathering preferences have not been ascertained to inform evidence-based resource development. As a result, prior studies have found that donors desire information that is not included in current informed consent and/or educational materials.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 LKDs who donated at our center to assess (1) concerns about donation that they either had personally before or after donation or heard from family members or friends, (2) information that they had desired before donation, and (3) where they sought information about donation. We used thematic analysis of verbatim interview transcriptions to identify donation-related concerns. We compared the demographic characteristics of participants reporting specific concerns using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

We identified 19 unique concerns that participants had or heard about living kidney donation. 20% of participants reported having had no pre-donation concerns; 38% reported no post-donation concerns. The most common concern pre-donation was future kidney failure (22%), post-donation was the recovery process (24%), and from family was endangering their family unit (16%). 44% of participants reported being less concerned than family. 26% of participants wished they had had additional information prior to donating, including practical advice for recovery (10%) and information about specific complications (14%). Caucasian participants were more likely to hear at least one concern from family (76% vs. 33%, p = 0.02). The most commonly consulted educational resources were health care providers (100%) and websites (79% of donors since 2000). 26% of participants had had contact with other donors; an additional 20% desired contact with other LKDs.

Conclusions

Potential donors not only have personal donation-related concerns but frequently hear donation-related concerns from family members and friends. Current gaps in donor education include an absence of practical, peer-to-peer advice about donation from other prior donors and materials directed and potential donors’ family members and friends. These findings can inform the development of new educational practices and resources targeted not only at LKDs but at their social networks.

Dialysis facility staff perceptions of racial, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation

Background

Racial/ethnic, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have been well documented, but few studies have explored health care staff attitudes towards these inequalities. Staff perceptions can influence patient care and outcomes, and identifying staff perceptions on disparities could aid in the development of potential interventions to address these health inequities. The objective of this study was to investigate dialysis staff (n = 509), primarily social workers and nurse managers, perceptions of renal transplant disparities in the Southeastern United States.

Methods

This is a mixed methods study that uses both deductive and inductive qualitative analysis of a dialysis staff survey conducted in 2012 using three open-ended questions that asked staff to discuss their perceptions of factors that may contribute to transplant disparities among African American, female, and elderly patients.

Results

Study results suggested that the majority of staff (n = 255, 28%) perceived patients’ low socioeconomic status as the primary theme related to why renal transplant disparities exist between African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Staff cited patient perception of old age as a primary contributor (n = 188, 23%) to the disparity between young and elderly patients. The dialysis staff responses on gender transplant disparities suggested that staff were unaware of differences due to limited experience and observation (n = 76, 14.7%) of gender disparities.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that dialysis facilities should educate staff on existing renal transplantation disparities, particularly gender disparities, and collaboratively work with transplant facilities to develop strategies to actively address modifiable patient barriers for transplant.

A Clustered Randomized Trial of an Educational Intervention During Transplant Evaluation to Increase Knowledge of Living Donor Kidney Transplant

INTRODUCTION

Maximizing education about living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) during the in-person evaluation at the transplant center may increase the numbers of kidney patients pursuing LDKT. Research Questions and Design: To test the effectiveness of a 1-time LDKT educational intervention, we performed a cluster-randomized trial among 499 patients who presented for evaluation of kidney transplant. We compared usual care education (n = 250) versus intensive LDKT education (n = 249), which was implemented only on the evaluation day and consisted of viewing a 25-minute video of information and stories about LDKT and discussion of LDKT possibilities with an educator. Our primary outcome was knowledge of LDKT, 1 week after the transplant evaluation.

RESULTS

One week after evaluation, patients who received intensive education had higher knowledge than patients who received usual care (12.7 vs. 11.7; P = .0008), but there were no differences in postevaluation readiness for LDKT. Among patients who had not previously identified a potential living donor, receiving intensive education was associated with increased willingness to take steps toward LDKT.

DISCUSSION

In conclusion, expansion of LDKT education within the evaluation day may be helpful, but interventions that are implemented at multiple times and for greater duration may be necessary to ensure larger and long-term behavioral changes in pursuit of LDKT.

Has the Department of Veterans Affairs Found a Way to Avoid Racial Disparities in the Evaluation Process for Kidney Transplantation?

BACKGROUND

Minority groups are affected by significant disparities in kidney transplantation (KT) in Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA transplant centers. However, prior VA studies have been limited to retrospective, secondary database analyses that focused on multiple stages of the KT process simultaneously. Our goal was to determine whether disparities during the evaluation period for KT exist in the VA as has been found in non-VA settings.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter longitudinal cohort study of 602 patients undergoing initial evaluation for KT at 4 National VA KT Centers. Participants completed a telephone interview to determine whether, after controlling for medical factors, differences in time to acceptance for transplant were explained by patients' demographic, cultural, psychosocial, or transplant knowledge factors.

RESULTS

There were no significant racial disparities in the time to acceptance for KT [Log-Rank χ = 1.04; P = 0.594]. Younger age (hazards ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-0.99), fewer comorbidities (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95), being married (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99), having private and public insurance (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.51), and moderate or greater levels of depression (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.03-3.29) predicted a shorter time to acceptance. The influence of preference for type of KT (deceased or living donor) and transplant center location on days to acceptance varied over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the VA National Transplant System did not exhibit the racial disparities in evaluation for KT as have been found in non-VA transplant centers.

Protocol of the KTFT-TALK study to reduce racial disparities in kidney transplant evaluation and living donor kidney transplantation

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The evaluation process for a kidney transplant is complex, time consuming, and burdensome to the ESKD patient. Also, race disparities exist in rates of transplant evaluation completion, transplantation, and LDKT. In December 2012 our transplant center implemented a streamlined, one-day evaluation process, dubbed Kidney Transplant Fast Track (KTFT). This paper describes the protocol of a two-part study to evaluate the effectiveness of KTFT at increasing transplant rates (compared to historical controls) and the TALK intervention (Talking About Live Kidney Donation) at increasing LDKT during KTFT. All participants will receive the KTFT evaluation as part of their usual care. Participants will be randomly assigned to TALK versus no-TALK conditions. Patients will undergo interviews at pre-transplant work-up and transplant evaluation. Transplant status will be tracked via medical records. Our aims are to: (1) test the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the KTFT in reducing time to complete kidney transplant evaluation, and increasing kidney transplant rates relative to standard evaluation practices; (2) test whether TALK increases rates of LDKT during KTFT; and (3) determine whether engaging in a streamlined and coordinated-care evaluation experience within the transplant center reduces negative perceptions of the healthcare system. The results of this two-pronged approach will help pave the way for other transplant centers to implement a fast-track system at their sites, improve quality of care by transplanting a larger number of vulnerable patients, and address stark race/ethnic disparities in rates of LDKT.

Barriers to the use of a federal travel grant by living kidney donors

Living organ donation involves significant out-of-pocket costs, which burden donor candidates and may be an obstacle to donation. There is a single US grant (the National Living Donor Assistance Center-NLDAC) to cover live donor travel costs. Although there may be center-specific variability in grant utilization, prospective donors-and their intended recipients-must also meet eligibility criteria. In fact, the NLDAC grant is used by <10% of US live donors annually. We studied 154 consecutive kidney donor clinic evaluations (November 1, 2014-August 30, 2015) to determine eligibility and usage patterns during the evaluation process. Of these, 63 (41%) were local, had travel benefits, or declined. Of the remaining 91 prospective donors who might have benefited from grant support, only 29 (32%) obtained the grant. The other 62 (68%) did not meet eligibility screening. The major reason prospective donors were ineligible was that the recipient's household income was outside the required means test (ie, >300% of the federal poverty level) (n=51; 82%). The remaining exclusions (n=11; 18%) included being a nondirected donor, not meeting residency requirements, and "other." Expanding NLDAC eligibility criteria-by broadening the recipient means test or by taking steps to eliminate it from the NLDAC charter-would reduce financial burdens associated with live donation.

Predictors and Moderators of Educational Interventions to Increase the Likelihood of Potential Living Donors for Black Patients Awaiting Kidney Transplantation

Our aim was to identify predictors and moderators of the effects of a house calls (HC) educational intervention, relative to a group-based (GB) intervention and to individual counseling (IC), in a randomized controlled trial to increase the likelihood of having living donor (LD) evaluations initiated and live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Black adults wait listed for kidney transplantation (N = 152) were randomized into one of the three educational conditions. We examined demographic, clinical, psychosocial, and socio-contextual baseline characteristics as predictors and moderators of having a potential LD initiate evaluation. HC assignment (OR = 2.024.7311.05, P = 0.001), younger age (OR = 0.910.940.98, P = 0.001), more willingness to discuss donation with others (OR = 1.081.371.75, P = 0.01), and larger social network (OR = 1.011.091.18, P = 0.04) were significant multivariable predictors of having ≥1 LD initiate evaluation. Age (P = 0.03) and social network size (P = 0.02) moderated the effect of HC relative to IC and GB, but not GB relative to IC, on LD evaluation initiation. Our findings suggest that HC is most effective for patients <60 years old and those with average or large social network size.

African American kidney transplant patients' perspectives on challenges in the living donation process

CONTEXT

The increasing shortage of deceased donor kidneys suitable for African Americans highlights the critical need to increase living donations among African Americans. Little research has addressed African American transplant recipients' perspectives on challenges and barriers related to the living donation process.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the perspectives of African American recipients of deceased and living donor kidney transplants on challenges, barriers, and educational needs related to pursuing such transplants.

PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN

A mixed-method design involved 27 African American kidney recipients (13 male) in 4 focus groups (2 per recipient type: 16 African American deceased donor and 11 living donor recipients) and questionnaires. Focus group transcripts were evaluated with NVivo 10.0 (QSR, International) by using inductive and deductive qualitative methods along with crystallization to develop themes of underlying barriers to the living donor kidney transplant process and were compared with the questionnaires.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified from groups: concerns, knowledge and learning, expectations of support, and communication. Many concerns for the donor were identified (eg, process too difficult, financial burden, effect on relationships). A general lack of knowledge about the donor process and lack of behavioral skills on how to approach others was noted. The latter was especially evident among deceased donor recipients. Findings from the questionnaires on myths and perceptions supported the lack of knowledge in a variety of domains, including donors' surgical outcomes risks, costs of surgery, and impact on future health. Participants thought that an educational program led by an African American recipient of a living donor kidney transplant, including practice in approaching others, would increase the likelihood of transplant-eligible patients pursuing living donor kidney transplant.

Making house calls increases living donor inquiries and evaluations for blacks on the kidney transplant waiting list

BACKGROUND

Blacks receive live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) less often than patients of all other races. We evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions in removing barriers to LDKT for blacks.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to three interventions in which health educator(s) delivered an intervention to (a) the patient and his/her guests in the patient's home (house calls [HC], n=54), (b) clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (group based [GB], n=49), and (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (individual counseling [IC], n=49).

RESULTS

At the 2-year endpoint, 15% (n=8), 8% (n=4), and 6% (n=3) of HC, GB, and IC patients, respectively, received LDKT (P=0.30). Patients in the HC group were more likely than patients in the GB and IC groups to have at least one donor inquiry (82% vs. 61% vs. 47%, P=0.001) and evaluation (65% vs. 39% vs. 27%, P<0.001). Patients in the HC group also were more likely to have higher knowledge, fewer concerns, and higher willingness to talk to others about donation 6 weeks after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings underscore the importance of including the patient's social network in LDKT education and the potential of the HC intervention to reduce racial disparity in LDKT rates.

Lung Transplant or Bust: Patients' Recommendations for Ideal Lung Transplant Education

Context

Effective lung transplant education helps ensure informed decision making by patients and better transplant outcomes.

Objective

To understand the educational needs and experiences of lung transplant patients.

Design

Mixed-method study employing focus groups and patient surveys.

Setting

Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St Louis, Missouri.

Patients

50 adult lung transplant patients: 23 pretransplant and 27 posttransplant.

Main Outcome Measures

Patients' interest in receiving specific transplant information, the stage in the transplant process during which they wanted to receive the education, and the preferred format for presenting the information.

Results

Patients most wanted information about how to sustain their transplant (72%), when to contact their coordinator immediately (56%), transplant benefits (56%), immunosuppressants (54%), and possible out-of-pocket expenses (52%). Patients also wanted comprehensive information early in the transplant process and a review of a subset of topics immediately before transplant (time between getting the call that a potential donor has been found and getting the transplant). Patients reported that they would use Internet resources (74%) and converse with transplant professionals (68%) and recipients (62%) most often.

Discussion

Lung transplant patients are focused on learning how to get a transplant and ensuring its success afterwards. A comprehensive overview of the evaluation, surgery, and recovery process at evaluation onset with a review of content about medications, pain management, and transplant recovery repeated immediately before surgery is ideal.

Improving the delivery of patient education about kidney transplant in a transplant center

CONTEXT

Kidney transplant is usually the best treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease; however, transplant rates remain low in the United States. More research is needed about patients' educational needs to ensure that patients are making informed decisions about their treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To examine patients' perceptions of the delivery and format of a kidney transplant education program in a clinical setting, specifically to (1) identify useful aspects of the transplant education process, (2) discuss aspects of the program delivery that need improvement, and (3) provide recommendations to enhance the education delivery and format surrounding kidney transplant.

DESIGN

A descriptive study using focus group meetings with patients at different stages of the transplantation process (in evaluation, listed, and transplant recipients). Data were analyzed by using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Use of printed materials and handouts, group education format, and patient advocate component as well as bringing a companion were all effective aspects of the education program. Concerns about the education program stemmed from its complexity, technicality, and length. Participants recommended that patients be sent a formal invitation letter, with a detailed agenda and a video on kidney transplant, and that patients be encouraged to bring a companion to the education program. Responses specific to the stage of the transplant process are presented.

CONCLUSION

Concentrated attention to the delivery and content of the transplant education programs may significantly assist with patients' outcomes throughout the transplant process.

Perceived discrimination predicts longer time to be accepted for kidney transplant

BACKGROUND

Although end-stage kidney disease in African Americans (AAs) is four times greater than in whites, AAs are less than one half as likely to undergo kidney transplantation (KT). This racial disparity has been found even after controlling for clinical factors such as comorbid conditions, dialysis vintage and type, and availability of potential living donors. Therefore, studying nonmedical factors is critical to understanding disparities in KT.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal cohort study with 127 AA and white patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing evaluation for KT (December 2006 to July 2007) to determine whether, after controlling for medical factors, differences in time to acceptance for transplant is explained by patients' cultural factors (e.g., perceived racism and discrimination, medical mistrust, religious objections to living donor KT), psychosocial characteristics (e.g., social support, anxiety, depression), or transplant knowledge. Participants completed two telephone interviews (shortly after initiation of transplant evaluation and after being accepted or found ineligible for transplant).

RESULTS

Results indicated that AA patients reported higher levels of the cultural factors than did whites. We found no differences in comorbidity or availability of potential living donors. AAs took significantly longer to get accepted for transplant than did whites (hazard ratio=1.49, P=0.005). After adjustment for demographic, psychosocial, and cultural factors, the association of race with longer time for listing was no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that interventions to address racial disparities in KT incorporate key nonmedical risk factors in patients.

Evaluation of an education intervention to increase the pursuit of living kidney donation: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Many transplant candidates have concerns about living donation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a structured educational session increased eligible kidney transplant candidates' pursuit of living donation.

DESIGN AND INTERVENTION

Eligible transplant candidates were randomized to standard of care (n = 50) or to the educational intervention (n = 50), which included both written materials and a 2-hour education session. The primary outcome was having a living donor contact the transplant program to express interest in donation for a patient, and a secondary outcome was the candidates' preference for treatment of end-stage renal disease; both outcomes were determined at 3 months after enrollment.

RESULTS

Of the 100 patients randomized, 4 in the intervention group and 2 in the standard of care group had a living donor contact the program (P = .45). Within-group changes in treatment preference from baseline were seen in the education intervention group (P = .02), but not in the standard of care group (P = .37).

CONCLUSIONS

This educational intervention did not increase the likelihood of a potential donor contacting the transplant program, compared with standard care. However, patients who received the educational intervention were more likely to change their treatment preference to living donation at study completion. Research investigating other methods of increasing living transplant rates is urgently required.

Evaluation of an Education Intervention to Increase the Pursuit of Living Kidney Donation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Context

Many transplant candidates have concerns about living donation.

Objective

To determine whether a structured educational session increased eligible kidney transplant candidates' pursuit of living donation.

Design and Intervention

Eligible transplant candidates were randomized to standard of care (n = 50) or to the educational intervention (n = 50), which included both written materials and a 2-hour education session. The primary outcome was having a living donor contact the transplant program to express interest in donation for a patient, and a secondary outcome was the candidates' preference for treatment of end-stage renal disease; both outcomes were determined at 3 months after enrollment.

Results

Of the 100 patients randomized, 4 in the intervention group and 2 in the standard of care group had a living donor contact the program ( P = .45). Within-group changes in treatment preference from baseline were seen in the education intervention group ( P = .02), but not in the standard of care group (P = .37).

Conclusions

This educational intervention did not increase the likelihood of a potential donor contacting the transplant program, compared with standard care. However, patients who received the educational intervention were more likely to change their treatment preference to living donation at study completion. Research investigating other methods of increasing living transplant rates is urgently required.

Barriers to living donor kidney transplantation among black or older transplant candidates

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Lower rates of living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) among transplant candidates who are black or older may stem from lower likelihoods of (1) recruiting potential living donors or (2) potential donors actually donating (donor "conversion").

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A single-center, retrospective cohort study was performed to determine race, age, and gender differences in LDKT, donor recruitment, and donor conversion.

RESULTS

Of 1617 kidney transplant candidates, 791 (48.9%) recruited at least one potential living donor, and 452 (28.0%) received LDKTs. Black transplant candidates, versus non-blacks, were less likely to receive LDKTs (20.5% versus 30.6%, relative risk [RR] = 0.67), recruit potential living donors (43.9% versus 50.7%, RR = 0.86), and receive LDKTs if they had potential donors (46.8% versus 60.3%, RR = 0.78). Transplant candidates ≥60 years, versus candidates 18 to <40 years old, were less likely to receive LDKTs (15.1% versus 43.2%, RR = 0.35), recruit potential living donors (34.0% versus 64.6%, RR = 0.53), and receive LDKTs if they had potential donors (44.5% versus 66.8%, RR = 0.67). LDKT and donor recruitment did not differ by gender. Race and age differences persisted in multivariable logistic regression models. Among 339 candidates who recruited potential donors but did not receive LDKTs, blacks (versus non-blacks) were more likely to have potential donors who failed to donate because of a donor-related reason (86.9% versus 72.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Black or older kidney transplant candidates were less likely to receive LDKTs because of lower likelihoods of donor recruitment and donor conversion.

Correlates of Support for Living Donation among African American Adults

Context

Living donation is studied with much less intensity among African Americans than among the general population. Examination of barriers to living donation can lead to effective strategies to educate dialysis patients and their families about this alternative.

Objective

To explore the correlates of likelihood of becoming a living donor among community-recruited African American adults.

Design/Participants

Cross-sectional data were gathered via self-administered questionnaire from 425 African American adults, age 18 years and older, who were recruited from 9 churches in Atlanta.

Main Outcome Measures

Self-reported likelihood of becoming a living donor to a close family member, an extended family member or friend, or a stranger.

Results

More than three-quarters of participants were willing to act as living donors to a close family member or spouse and two-thirds to friends or extended family. For likelihood of donating to a friend or extended family member, only willingness to engage in deceased donation was significantly associated; to a stranger, both willingness to engage in deceased donation and attitudes toward donation were significantly associated. Knowledge of and personal experiences with donation and/or transplantation were not significantly associated with likelihood of any type of living donation.

Conclusions

Findings indicate widespread support for living donation to a close family member or spouse. These findings have important implications for dialysis patients who must decide whether to approach friends and/or family about the possibility of serving as a living donor and emphasize the need for interventions to help facilitate this process.

Health literacy skills of kidney transplant recipients

CONTEXT

Although low health literacy can affect patients' treatment decision making, comprehension of health information, and medication adherence, little is known about health literacy skills of kidney transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship among kidney transplant recipients' health literacy levels, transplant knowledge, and graft function.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of 124 adult kidney transplant recipients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Health literacy was assessed via the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Transplantation (REALM-T). Data on recipients' transplant numeracy, knowledge needs, and demographics were collected via semistructured interviews. Multivariable linear regressions were used to assess the relationship between health literacy and graft function.

RESULTS

Most kidney recipients (91%) had adequate health literacy (S-TOFHLA); however, 81% were unfamiliar with at least 1 kidney transplant-related term (REALM-T). The 5 least familiar terms were sensitization (50%), urethra (45%), trough level (41%), blood urea nitrogen (32%), and toxicity (31%). Numeracy levels varied: 21% knew the likelihood of 1-year graft survival; 29% knew that half of kidney recipients have problems with the transplant in the first 6 months; 68% were aware of the risk of death within the first year after transplantation; and 86% knew the normal range for creatinine in kidney recipients. Patients with lower health literacy (REALM-T) had higher creatinine levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant providers should intervene with better patient education materials to improve patients' health literacy, which may improve patients' medication adherence or transplant outcomes.

Living-Related Donors' Quest for Information before Donation

Context

Providing potential living-related liver donors with all the necessary information before donation can be challenging. What information donors need and are not getting during the evaluation phase has not been defined.

Objective

To increase understanding of the everyday life of living-related liver donors and to suggest educational strategies that could be used by transplant centers during the evaluation process.

Design

An interpretive ethnographic study based on a symbolic interactionism approach. All participants were interviewed; some were reinterviewed in order to better understand their experience as a donor.

Setting

Interviews took place in the clinic, the donor's home, the donor's workplace, and in coffee shops depending on each donor's preference.

Participants

A total of 13 parents who had donated the left lower lobe of their liver to their son or daughter at least 1 year ago.

Main Outcome Measures

Interviews were analyzed by using qualitative research methods of coding, summarizing, and discussing concepts.

Results

The donors viewed the donation as a life-changing event, and 11 of 13 donors described seeking further information in addition to the information given to them by the transplant center. Searching the Internet, reading research articles, and speaking to other donors were activities demonstrated by the participants.

Strategies to Advance Living Kidney Donation: A Single Center's Experience

In Europe, living kidney donation rates differ considerably from country to country. These differences are related to deceased kidney donation rates: countries with higher deceased donation rates have lower living donation rates. Despite the differences, all countries have one thing in common, namely, the shortage of kidneys for transplantation. Living kidney donation is a good option to alleviate these shortages. In our center, 60% to 70% of all kidney transplants come from living donors. This article describes various strategies that may have contributed to these high living donation rates: team attitude, educational materials and meetings, and alternative donation programs (exchange donation, domino-paired donation, Good Samaritan donation). Also described are some less conventional strategies for increasing rate of living kidney donation that are not used in the Netherlands but may offer some good perspectives (eg, the “Norwegian approach” and home-based educational programs).

Health Literacy Skills of Kidney Transplant Recipients

Context

Although low health literacy can affect patients' treatment decision making, comprehension of health information, and medication adherence, little is known about health literacy skills of kidney transplant recipients.

Objective

To examine the relationship among kidney transplant recipients' health literacy levels, transplant knowledge, and graft function.

Design

Cross-sectional study of 124 adult kidney transplant recipients.

Main Outcome Measures

Health literacy was assessed via the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Transplantation (REALM-T). Data on recipients' transplant numeracy, knowledge needs, and demographics were collected via semistructured interviews. Multivariable linear regressions were used to assess the relationship between health literacy and graft function.

Results

Most kidney recipients (91%) had adequate health literacy (S-TOFHLA); however, 81% were unfamiliar with at least 1 kidney transplant–related term (REALM-T). The 5 least familiar terms were sensitization (50%), urethra (45%), trough level (41%), blood urea nitrogen (32%), and toxicity (31%). Numeracy levels varied: 21% knew the likelihood of 1-year graft survival; 29% knew that half of kidney recipients have problems with the transplant in the first 6 months; 68% were aware of the risk of death within the first year after transplantation; and 86% knew the normal range for creatinine in kidney recipients. Patients with lower health literacy (REALM-T) had higher creatinine levels.

Conclusions

Transplant providers should intervene with better patient education materials to improve patients' health literacy, which may improve patients' medication adherence or transplant outcomes.

Improving Preemptive Transplant Education to Increase Living Donation Rates: Reaching Patients Earlier in Their Disease Adjustment Process

Patients who receive a preemptive kidney transplant before starting dialysis avoid the medical complications related to dialysis and have the highest graft success and lowest mortality rates. Because only 2.5% of incident patients receive kidney transplants preemptively, improved psychosocial education may assist more patients in accessing preemptive transplant. This article outlines (1) unique psychosocial issues affecting patients with chronic kidney disease stage 4 (glomerular filtration rates >20 mL/min per 1.73 m2) and (2) how an educational program about preemptive living donor transplant should be designed and administered to increase access to this treatment option. Early referral patients may be overwhelmed in coping with and learning about their disease and, therefore, not ready to make a treatment decision, or they may be highly motivated to obtain a transplant to avoid dialysis and return to a normal life. An education program that defines the quality-of-life and health benefits possible with early transplant is outlined. The program is focused on minimizing the disruption of starting 2 treatment techniques and maximizing early transplant health, graft survival, employability, and retention of insurance coverage. Once the benefits of preemptive living donor transplant are outlined, educators can focus on demystifying the living donor evaluation process and assisting interested patients in planning how to find a living donor. To reach all patients, especially racial minorities, education about preemptive transplant should be available in primary-care physicians' and community nephrologists' offices, at dialysis centers, and through other kidney organizations.