Consideration of psychosocial factors in the evaluation of living donors

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Living Kidney Donation: A Single Center Experience

This article describes the development and implementation of an initiative at one transplant center to annually assess psychosocial outcomes of living kidney donors. The current analysis focuses on a cohort of adults (n = 208) who donated a kidney at BIDMC between September 2005 and August 2012, in which two post-donation annual assessments could be examined. One and two year post-donation surveys were returned by 59 % (n = 123) and 47 % (n = 98) of LKDs, respectively. Those who did not complete any survey were more likely to be younger (p = 0.001), minority race/ethnicity (p < 0.001), and uninsured at the time of donation (p = 0.01) compared to those who returned at least one of the two annual surveys. The majority of donors reported no adverse physical or psychosocial consequences of donation, high satisfaction with the donation experience, and no donation decision regret. However, a sizable minority of donors felt more pain intensity than expected and recovery time was much slower than expected, and experienced a clinically significant decline in vitality. We describe how these outcomes are used to inform clinical practice at our transplant center as well as highlight challenges in donor surveillance over time.

Ethical issues regarding related and nonrelated living organ donors

The ethics of the clinical practice of transplanting human organs for end-stage organ disease is a fascinating topic. Who is the "owner" of the transplantable organs of a deceased, brain-dead patient? Who should have a right to receive these organs? Who set the boundaries between a living donor's autonomy and a "paternalistic" doctor? What constitutes a proper consent? These questions are only some of the ethical issues that have been discussed in the last 60 years. All of these ethical issues are intensified by the fact that supply of human organs does not match demand, and that, as a consequence, living-donor organ transplantation is widely utilized. The aim of this article is not to be exhaustive but to present the general ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice as applied to organ transplantation. Moreover, the topic of reimbursement for organ donation is also discussed.

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.

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.

Quality of life in kidney donors

Reports on quality of life of kidney donors include small populations with variable response rates. The aim was to evaluate quality of life in kidney donors in a large cross-sectional study. Through the Norwegian Renal Registry we contacted all 1984 kidney donors in the period 1963-2007 with a response rate of 76%. All received the Short-Form-36 (SF-36) survey form and a questionnaire specifically designed for kidney donors. SF-36 scores for a subgroup (n = 1414) of kidney donors were not inferior to a general population sample, adjusted for age, gender and education. When asked to reconsider, a majority stated that they still would have consented to donate. Risk factors for having doubts were graft loss in the recipient (OR 3.1, p < 0.001), medical problems after donation (OR 3.7, p < 0.001), unrelated donor (OR 2.2, p = 0.01) and less than 12 years since donation (OR 1.8, p = 0.04). Older age at donation was associated with lower risk (OR 0.98, p = 0.03). Compared with other donors, those expressing doubts had inferior SF-36 scores. Norwegian kidney donors are mostly first-degree relatives. They are fully reimbursed and offered life-long follow-up. All inhabitants are provided universal healthcare. This should be considered when extrapolating these results to other countries.

Quality of life, coping, and mental health status after living kidney donation

The main aim of the study was to explore well-being after donation. This retrospective, cross-sectional study of 161 living kidney donors (104 women; response rate 81.4%) who were aged between 32 and 80 years (x = 56.3; standard deviation = 10.9) included responses to standardized questionnaires concerning quality of life (QOL), coping, and mental health status. Most donors recovered fully from donation within 6 months (90.8%). Donor willingness to donate again (96.1%) was high. Their relationship to the recipient did not change (67.9%) or even improved (27.5%) in most cases. Donor QOL (as assessed by the Short-Form [SF]-36) did not differ from healthy norms. In 25% of donors, screening with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale revealed anxious and/or depressive symptoms above the clinical cutoff score. Donor predominant coping style with their recipient's renal disease was "active problem-focused coping." The component scores of the SF-36 correlated positively with sociodemographic and self-reported medical parameters, coping, and mental health status. Although living kidney donation again proved to be a treatment without negative impact on donor QOL, the results underlined the importance of screening for donor mental health status and coping both in the evaluation process and after the procedure.