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

Living donor liver transplant candidate and donor selection and engagement: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference

INTRODUCTION

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur.

METHODS

In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier.

RESULTS

Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

"Giving the gift of life twice": Understanding the lived experiences of parent donors and nondonors in pediatric haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

The use of parental donors in pediatric haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation is increasing, but research on the psychosocial impact of parental donation is currently limited.

OBJECTIVES

As part of a larger study, we conducted a retrospective, qualitative analysis to explore parental perceptions of the donation process and the impact of being a donor (or nondonor) on parents' adjustment and coping with their child's transplant experience.

METHODS

Parents/caregivers of children who underwent transplantation with a parental donor or a matched unrelated donor (N = 136) participated in interviews and completed an open-ended questionnaire.

RESULTS

Six themes were identified in the data: level of understanding and satisfaction; perception of choice; preparation for donation; perceptions of donation and infusion; benefit finding; and psychological impact of transplantation. Most parents were satisfied with the information they received and reported a good understanding of transplantation and donation procedures. Parents were divided on perspectives of choice, but their responses reflect that the necessity of saving their child's life does not allow for choice. They described considerable effort to prepare for transplantation, physically, emotionally, and logistically. Parents acknowledged the psychological impact while identifying positive outcomes that resulted from their child's transplant journey.

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the unique experiences of parental donors and nondonors from the anticipation phase to the completion of their child's transplant. Additionally, findings inform supportive care guidance by highlighting the need to assess parental donors' emotional functioning, provide support post donation, and conduct bereavement follow-up.

Psychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study

Living kidney donors' follow-up is usually focused on the assessment of the surgical and medical outcomes. Whilst the psychosocial follow-up is advocated in literature. It is still not entirely clear which exact psychosocial factors are related to a poor psychosocial outcome of donors. The aim of our study is to prospectively assess the donors' psychosocial risks factors to impaired health-related quality of life at 1-year post-donation and link their psychosocial profile before donation with their respective outcomes. The influence of the recipient's medical outcomes on their donor's psychosocial outcome was also examined. Sixty donors completed a battery of standardized psychometric instruments (quality of life, mental health, coping strategies, personality, socio-economic status), and ad hoc items regarding the donation process (e.g., motivations for donation, decision-making, risk assessment, and donor-recipient relationship). Donors' 1-year psychosocial follow-up was favorable and comparable with the general population. So far, cluster-analysis identified a subgroup of donors (28%) with a post-donation reduction of their health-related quality of life. This subgroup expressed comparatively to the rest, the need for more pre-donation information regarding surgery risks, and elevated fear of losing the recipient and commitment to stop their suffering.

Health-related quality of life of living liver donors 1 year after donation

Background

Improving the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of living liver donors post-donation is an important aspect of care quality. Analyzing the HRQOL of living liver donors prospectively could help improve our understanding of the recovery of HRQOL and help improve the quality of donor care. In this study, we examined the HRQOL of living liver donors at pre-donation and at 1-year post-donation and analyzed the effect of pre- and post-donation factors on the donors' physical and mental HRQOL.

Methods

This was a prospective study. During the enrollment period (August 2013 to December 2015), 68 living liver donors completed the study questionnaires 5 times: at pre-donation and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-donation. The Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form-36, which yields both physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores, was used to measure the HRQOL. The pre- and post-donation factors included donation ambivalence, recipients' physical condition, post-donation complications, and recipients' survival status.

Results

Participants' mean PCS scores were 43.59 and 56.50 at 1 and 12 months after donation, respectively, whereas their mean MCS scores were 46.89 and 46.28, respectively. The mean PCS score was worse at 1 month after donation but improved significantly over time (P<0.05); conversely, the MCS was quite stable over time (P>0.05). A good PCS score was associated with no surgical complications of donation (coefficient =2.87, P=0.02), whereas a poor MCS score was associated with an education of less than a bachelor's degree (coefficient =-3.60, P=0.004), a higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score in the recipient (coefficient =-0.13, P=0.03), and recipient death (coefficient =-3.48, P=0.03). Pre-donation ambivalence and sense of coherence were not significant predictors of the PCS or MCS scores.

Conclusions

The impact of living liver donation on HRQOL was strongest in the early stages of the post-surgery period for the physical domain. Health-care professionals should carefully manage and monitor the progress of surgical outcomes, particularly in high-risk groups such as donors with a low education level or donors whose recipients have severe illness or end up dying after the surgery. Doing so may allow for suitable intervention opportunities to improve the HRQOL of living liver donors.

Mood, body image, fear of kidney failure, life satisfaction, and decisional stability following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC study

Prior studies demonstrate that most living kidney donors (LKDs) report no adverse psychosocial outcomes; however, changes in psychosocial functioning at the individual donor level have not been routinely captured. We studied psychosocial outcomes predonation and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation in 193 LKDs and 20 healthy controls (HCs). There was minimal to no mood disturbance, body image concerns, fear of kidney failure, or life dissatisfaction, indicating no incremental changes in these outcomes over time and no significant differences between LKDs and HCs. The incidence of any new-onset adverse outcomes postdonation was as follows: mood disturbance (16%), fear of kidney failure (21%), body image concerns (13%), and life dissatisfaction (10%). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs with more mood disturbance symptoms, higher anxiety about future kidney health, low body image, and low life satisfaction prior to surgery were at highest risk of these same outcomes postdonation. It is important to note that some LKDs showed improvement in psychosocial functioning from pre- to postdonation. Findings support the balanced presentation of psychosocial risks to potential donors as well as the development of a donor registry to capture psychosocial outcomes beyond the mandatory 2-year follow-up period in the United States.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Psychosocial Outcomes 3 to 10 Years After Donation in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Studies of liver donors' psychosocial outcomes focus on the short term and rely largely on quality-of-life measures not specific to donation. We sought to examine long-term donation effects on 3 psychosocial domains: perceived physical, emotional, and socioeconomic outcomes.

METHODS

Individuals donating 3 to 10 years previously at 9 centers were eligible for telephone surveys. Survey responses were examined descriptively. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct donor groups based on response profiles across psychosocial domains. Potential predictors of response profiles were evaluated with regression analysis.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventeen donors (66%) participated (M = 5.8 years postdonation, SD = 1.9). Fifteen percent to 48% of donors endorsed current donation-related physical health problems and concerns, and 7%-60% reported socioeconomic concerns (eg, insurance difficulties, financial expenditures). However, on average, donors experienced high psychological growth, and 90% felt positively about donation. Cluster analysis revealed 5 donor groups. One group showed high psychological benefit, with little endorsement of physical or socioeconomic concerns (15% of donors). Four groups showed less favorable profiles, with varying combinations of difficulties. The largest such group showed high endorsement of physical concerns and financial expenditures, and only modest psychological benefit (31% of donors). Men and nonHispanic whites were most likely to have unfavorable response profiles (Ps < 0.01). Compared with donors aged 19 to 30 years, older donors were less likely to have unfavorable profiles; these differences were significant for donors in the >40 to 50 year age group (Ps < 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Even many years postdonation, donors report adverse physical and socioeconomic effects, but positive emotional effects as well. Identification of response profiles and predictors may improve targeting of postdonation surveillance and care.

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

Background

The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.

Methods

This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.

Results

The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20–47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0–7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.

Conclusion

Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.

Long-Term Medical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Living Liver Donors

Due to the enduring organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation has been a valuable treatment strategy for advanced liver disease patients for over 20 years. A variety of reviews have summarized the extensive data now available on medical and psychosocial risks to living donors in the aftermath of donation. However, evidence on donor medical and psychosocial outcomes beyond the first year postdonation has not been synthesized in any previous review. The evidence base on such "long-term" outcomes has been growing in recent years. A review of this evidence would therefore be timely and could serve as an important resource to assist transplant centers in their efforts to fully educate prospective donors and gain informed consent, as well as develop appropriate postdonation clinical care and surveillance plans. We reviewed recent literature on long-term donor outcomes, considering (a) medical outcomes, including mortality risk, rates of complications, abnormalities detected in laboratory testing, and the progress of liver regeneration; and (b) donor-reported psychosocial outcomes reflecting physical, emotional, and interpersonal/socioeconomic well-being, as well as overall health-related quality of life. We summarize limitations and gaps in available evidence, and we provide recommendations for future research and clinical care activities focused on long-term outcomes in liver donors.

Early Postoperative Pain and its Predictors in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how well postoperative pain is managed in living liver donors, despite pain severity being the strongest predictor of persistent pain with long-lasting disability.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 172 living liver donors. Self-reported outcomes for pain severity, activity interference, affective (emotional) reactions, adverse effects to treatment, and perceptions of care were collected using the American Pain Society Patient Outcomes Questionnaire-Revised. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to identify demographic and psychosocial predictors of subscale scores.

RESULTS

Donors were young (36.8 ± 10.6) and healthy. Of 12 expert society analgesic recommendations for postoperative pain management, 49% received care conforming to 3 guidelines, and only 9% to 4 or 5. More than half reported adverse effects to analgesic treatment for moderate to severe pain that interfered with functional activity; however, emotional distress to pain was unexpectedly minimal. Female donors had higher affective (β = 0.88, P = 0.005) and adverse effects scores (β = 1.33, P < 0.001). Donors with 2 or more medical concerns before surgery averaged 1 unit higher pain severity, functional interference, adverse effects, and affective reaction subscale scores (β range 1.06-1.55, all P < 0.05). Receiving information about pain treatment options increased perception of care subscale scores (β = 1.24, P = 0.001), whereas depressive symptoms before donation were associated with lower scores (β = -1.58, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Donors have a distinct profile of pain reporting that is highly influenced by psychological characteristics. Interventions to improve pain control should consider modifying donor behavioral characteristics in addition to optimizing pain care protocols.

Emotional and Financial Experiences of Kidney Donors over the Past 50 Years: The RELIVE Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Most kidney donors view their experience positively, but some may experience psychosocial and financial burdens. We hypothesized that certain donor characteristics, poor outcome of the recipient, negative perceptions of care, and lack of support may be associated with poor psychosocial outcomes for donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study (RELIVE) examined long-term medical and psychosocial outcomes for kidney donors (at three U.S. transplant centers) who donated between 1963 and 2005. Standardized questionnaires evaluated donor perspectives, recovery time, social support, motivation, financial impact, insurability after donation, and current psychological status. Questionnaires were mailed to 6909 donors.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 2455 donors, who had donated 17 ± 10 years earlier (range, 5-48 years), a response rate of 36%. Most (95%) rated their overall donation experience as good to excellent. Rating the overall donor experience more negatively was associated with donor complications, psychological difficulties, recipient graft failure, and longer time since donation. Nine percent (n=231) reported one or more of the following poor psychosocial outcomes: fair or poor overall donor experience, financial burden, regret or discomfort with decision to donate, or psychological difficulties since donation. Recipient graft failure was the only predictor for reporting one or more of these poor psychosocial outcomes (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 2.34). Donors with lower educational attainment experienced greater financial burden. One of five employed donors took unpaid leave; 2% reported health and life insurability concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of donors viewed their overall donation experience positively, almost 1 in 10 donors reported at least one negative consequence related to donation. Recipient graft failure was associated with poor psychosocial outcome, defined as one or more of these negative consequences. Some donors were financially disadvantaged, and some experienced insurance difficulties. Interventions to avoid negative psychosocial and financial consequences are warranted.

Is donating a kidney to a friend bad for your marriage?

Studies have shown that kidney donation to a spouse has a positive impact on marriage. This study was done to evaluate the impact on marriage when donation occurs to someone other than the spouse. Two groups of donors from our centre who donated around the same period were studied: donation to a spouse (spouse donor (SD)) or to someone other than the spouse (non-spouse donor (ND)). A survey, the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale, was used to evaluate the effect of donation on the marriage. This tool consists of 14 questions that measure how satisfying and stable the relationship is. The results showed equal or better marriage scores in the ND group compared with the SD group. The NDs scored higher on two questions, one regarding agreement or disagreement on career choices (P = 0.05) and the other regarding the frequency of having stimulating exchanges of ideas with one's spouse (P = 0.02). With the highest possible total score of 69, NDs scored 53.4 and SDs scored 47.7 (P = 0.16). Scores of 47 and below indicate marital distress. In one final additional question, 97% of NDs reported 'no change or good effect' on the marriage, similar to 91% for SDs (P = 0.46). This is the first study to evaluate the effect of kidney donation on the state of marriage when the spouse is not the recipient. It appears that marriage is not impacted negatively when kidney donation occurs to someone other than the spouse.

Predictors of donor follow-up after living donor liver transplantation

Donor safety in living liver donation is of paramount importance; however, information on long-term outcomes is limited by incomplete follow-up. We sought to ascertain factors that predicted postdonation follow-up in 456 living liver donors in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study. Completed donor follow-up was defined as physical, phone, or laboratory contact at a given time point. Univariate and multivariate mixed effects logistic regression models, using donor and recipient demographic and clinical data and donor quality-of-life data, were developed to predict completed follow-up. Ninety percent of the donors completed their follow-up in the first 3 months, and 83% completed their follow-up at year 1; rates of completed follow-up ranged from 57% to 72% in years 2 to 7 and from 41% to 56% in years 8 to 10. The probability of completed follow-up in the first year was higher for white donors [odds ratio (OR) = 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25-8.58] but lower for donors whose recipients had hepatitis C virus or hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.17-0.69). After the first year, an older age at donation predicted more complete follow-up. There were significant center differences at all time points (OR range = 0.29-10.11), with center variability in both returns for in-center visits and the use of phone/long-distance visits. Donor follow-up in the first year after donation was excellent but decreased with time. Predictors of follow-up varied with the time since donation. In conclusion, adapting best center practices (enhanced through the use of telephones and social media) to maintain contact with donors represents a significant opportunity to gain valuable information about long-term donor outcomes.

Managing the Psychosocial and Financial Consequences of Living Donation

There has been dramatic growth in the last decade in the literature on psychosocial and financial impacts of living organ donation. With this growth has come recognition that these impacts must be considered when educating prospective donors about the donation process, and when planning donor follow-up care after donation. Our review highlights recent studies that provide new information on the nature of psychosocial and financial outcomes in living donors, with special attention to studies examining unrelated donors (i.e., those with no biologic or longstanding emotional connection to the transplant patient), given that these individuals represent a growing segment of the living donor population. Limitations and gaps in available evidence are noted. We also discuss recent recommendations for post-donation monitoring of donors' psychosocial and financial outcomes, and we consider advances in evidence regarding interventions and prevention strategies to minimize any adverse psychosocial and financial impacts of living donation.

Motivational interviewing and decisional balance: contrasting responses to client ambivalence

BACKGROUND

A recommendation in original descriptions of motivational interviewing (MI) was to "explore ambivalence". Contrasting procedures for doing so have been clarified through the evolution of MI.

AIMS

This article describes two conceptually distinct methods for responding to ambivalence: decisional balance (DB) and MI's evocation of change talk, and reviews empirical evidence to recommend when each procedure is appropriate (and inappropriate) in clinical practice.

METHOD

The authors summarize findings of clinical outcome research to examine how these two interventions impact the resolution of client ambivalence.

RESULTS

With ambivalent people, a DB intervention tends to decrease commitment to change, whereas evocation (a key element of MI) promotes change. When a person has already made the decision to change, evocation is unnecessary and may deter change, whereas DB may further strengthen commitment.

CONCLUSIONS

DB is an appropriate procedure when the clinician wishes to maintain neutrality and not favor the resolution of ambivalence in any particular direction. Evocation is appropriate when the clinician intends to help clients resolve ambivalence in the direction of change.

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

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

Ethical considerations in live donor transplantation: should complications be tolerated?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although living donor transplantation is considered an ethically acceptable undertaking for the purpose of saving another's life, its safety remains under investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although living donors undertake considerable medical risks for no direct medical benefit, the question remains whether the risks are acceptable and should be tolerated by providers and patients or whether additional interventions and safeguards are needed to reduce and/or prevent complications. By reviewing complication risk statistics and synthesizing empirical research regarding risk-taking thresholds and attitudes, this paper examines the possibilities for determining an acceptable level of complication risk for living donors. This paper also delineates the ethical tensions surrounding protecting donors from unnecessary risk versus respecting donor autonomy to accept risks, and concludes by discussing the importance of donor follow-up and the value of donor registries.

SUMMARY

In the absence of information on long-term donor outcomes, transplant centers should take special precautions to protect prospective donors given increasing pressures to reduce the organ shortage and concerns that donors often disregard risks to themselves to save the lives of others.

Race and ethnicity in decisions about unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donation

Large international registries of potential unrelated hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) donors, including the National Marrow Donor program (NMDP), continue to face difficulties finding matched donors for racial/ethnic minorities. One reason, in addition to the generally less common HLA types among minority patients, is the much higher registry attrition rate of racial/ethnic minorities compared with whites. Reasons for the higher attrition among minority potential donors remain unexplained. The goal of our cross-sectional telephone interview study was to generate a diverse sample of potential HSC donors who have preliminarily matched a patient and to identify factors associated with race/ethnicity and with the decision to continue toward potential donation or to opt out of the registry. Multiple culturally related, psychosocial, and donation-related factors were associated both with race/ethnic group membership and attrition from the registry. The most consistent factor associated with opting out of the registry across all race/ethnic groups was ambivalence about donation: doubts and worries, feeling unsure about donation, wishing someone else would donate in one's place. Our findings suggest that universal donor recruitment and management approaches based on reducing donation-related ambivalence and tailored messages and strategies for each of the individual race/ethnic groups are important.

Psychosocial and socioeconomic issues facing the living kidney donor

At the 2010 Conference on Living Kidney Donor follow-up, a workgroup was convened to comment on the state of the evidence in 4 broad areas: (a) health-related quality of life postdonation; (b) donors' financial and economic concerns; (c) outcomes issues specific to newer areas of donation, namely, kidney exchange and anonymous (directed and nondirected) donation; and (d) the role of informed consent in relation to postdonation psychosocial outcomes. The workgroup sought to offer recommendations regarding research priorities for the next decade and data collection strategies to accomplish the needed research. The workgroup concluded that there has been little consideration of the nature or predictors of any long-term psychosocial outcomes in living donors. In some areas (eg, kidney exchange and anonymous donation), there is limited information on outcomes even in the early aftermath of donation. Across all 4 psychosocial areas, prospective studies are needed that follow donors to examine the course of development and/or resolution of any donation-related difficulties. The formation of a national registry to routinely collect psychosocial follow-up data may be an efficient strategy to monitor donor outcomes in both the short- and long-term years after donation.