Living-related donors' quest for information before donation

The effect of a web-based self-care instruction on symptom experience and quality of life in living liver donors: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

Living liver donors need help to manage symptom distress and improve their quality of life. This study aims to test the effectiveness of a web-based symptom self-care instruction on symptom experience and health-related quality of life of living liver donors.

Methods

This study was a randomized controlled trial. Participants were recruited from January 2019 to August 2020. Participants in the experimental group had access to a web-based symptom self-care instruction, which included text and video. The control group received routine care. The primary outcomes were symptom distress and quality of life.

Results

A total of 90 living liver donors recruited in this study were assigned randomly to the web group (n = 46) and control group (n = 44). The symptom distress was significantly negatively correlated with quality of life at each data collection time. There was an interaction effect with the participants in the web group experiencing more symptom distress at three months after surgery than the control group (B = 3.616, 95% CI: 7.163-3.990, p = 0.046). There was no significant effect on the quality of life.

Conclusion

Patients in the web-based self-care group had higher symptom distress than those in the control group three months after surgery, but there was no difference in quality of life. Future studies could add some interactive elements to the website and include a larger sample size.

Registration

This study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900020518).

Recognition of Kidney Donation by Living Kidney Donors That Accompanies Changes in the Recipients' Physical Condition: Focusing on Its Influences on Donors

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, a total of 1586 kidney transplants were performed in Japan, and 1431 (90.2%) of the organs were from living donors. The purpose of this study is to illuminate the awareness of living kidney donors toward kidney donation after the condition of the recipient changed, thus clarifying the influence of that recognition on the donor.

METHODS

This study design was qualitative descriptive research. Transplant coordinators at 4 hospitals were commissioned to screen subject candidates and hand-deliver printed research explanations to them. Candidates who responded were selected as subjects. I conducted semistructured interviews and analyzed them using the grounded theory approach. This research was approved by the Ethics Research Committee, Faculty of Nursing, Toho University.

RESULTS

The survey period was from April to November 2014, and consent was obtained from 5 donors and 5 recipients. The outcome of recipients who received kidneys from the 5 donors was as follows: recovered after temporary worsening (n = 3), early graft loss (n = 1), and early death (n = 1). The core category was "to the donor, the meaning of kidney donation is continually redefined." The donors had a strong interest in the physical condition of the recipient. The 3 changes in the recipients' physical condition, defined as "recovery," "temporary worsening," and "complete deterioration," affected the donor's condition.

CONCLUSION

Due to changes in the recipient's physical condition, donors' psychological and physical condition and their definition of the meaning of kidney donation also changed. Health care systems that guarantee lifelong follow-up of the physical and psychological condition of donors after donation are needed.

Informed consent for live liver donors: A qualitative, prospective study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) poses serious health risks and no direct health benefits to donors. Ensuring live donors' autonomy through informed consent is critical. We assessed live liver donors' (LD) comprehension, information needs, risk perceptions, and demographics.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were prospectively conducted with LDs after completing donor evaluation and informed consent at our transplant center. Likert scales measured informed consent domains. Open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty LDs participated (100% participation rate). Although 90% of LDs reported being informed about donation 'a great deal', only 66% reported understanding information about donation 'a great deal.' Many (40%) reported difficulty understanding medical terminology. Information LDs most desired to feel comfortable with their decision included: incidence and type of donor complications (67%), description of donation procedure (57%), and the process of donor preparation (43%). Most (83%) LDs rated risks to themselves as 'not at all' to 'somewhat' risky, and minimized these risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LDs perceived that they were adequately informed, their actual comprehension about donation was inadequate. Findings suggest the value of informed consent for preparation for the procedure and potential periprocedural risks rather than for decision-making. More comprehensible information disclosure may optimize informed consent.

The silence of Good Samaritan kidney donation in Australia: a survey of hospital websites

It is common for living donor candidates to use the Internet as a tool to enhance their decision-making process. Specifically, the websites of transplant hospitals can potentially be a vital source of information for those contemplating living donation. In an effort to explore the low incidence of Good Samaritan kidney donation (donations to strangers) in Australia, two raters conducted a nine-attribute website content analysis for all hospitals which participate in these transplants (n = 15). Overall, the concept of living donation is relatively silent on Australian hospital websites. Only four hospitals mention their living donor program, and only one mentions their Good Samaritan program. No site linked directly to Australia's AKX Paired Kidney Exchange Program - the only program which facilitates pair and chain transplants in Australia. Further, information about deceased donation is nearly absent as well. An individual with the altruistic desire to donate will generally find scant or absent information about donation at the website of their local transplant hospital, although this information could easily be present as an educational tool which supports the consent process. Using a hospital website to educate the public about a clinical service should not be viewed as ethically problematic (solicitation), but rather an ethical essential.

Informed consent for living donation: a review of key empirical studies, ethical challenges and future research

Given the organ scarcity, live organ donation is increasingly considered a viable alternative for kidney and liver transplantation. Yet living donation challenges the ethical principle of nonmaleficence by subjecting healthy individuals to medical, psychosocial and unknown risks. Therefore, transplant providers, policy-makers and donors are committed to ensuring that prospective donors provide adequate informed consent to undergo the procedure. Informed consent for living donation is ethically required as a means of demonstrating respect for donor's autonomy and protecting their safety. However, all elements of informed consent are fraught with difficulties due to the unique nature of the donation process and outcome. This paper reviews empirical research on informed consent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both adult and pediatric recipients. As this review shows, studies that empirically assessed the quality of informed consent elements reveal considerable variability and deficiencies across the informed consent process, suggesting the need for improvement. This review highlights challenges to each element of consent for both LKDs and LLDs, and situates trends within broader policy contexts, ethical debates and avenues for future innovative research.

Donor information for living donor liver transplantation: where can comprehensive information be found?

Recently published data show that a large number of candidates for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) actively look for additional information on the Internet because today it represents the main source of information for many of them. However, little is known about the quality of the information on LDLT available on the Internet. Our aim was, therefore, to comprehensively evaluate the online information available for LDLT candidates with the expanded Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool (0-36 items). One hundred Web sites on LDLT were initially found with the Google, Bing, and Yahoo search engines, and we identified 32 Web sites that provided specific information for such candidates in English. Only 9 Web sites addressed >20 items and the scores tended to be higher for educational (P = 0.13) and scientific sites (P = 0.07) compared to hospital sites. The median number of items from the EQIP tool was only 16 (interquartile range = 13-20), and quantitative postoperative morbidity and mortality risk estimates were available on only 19% and 44% of the Web sites, respectively, despite the idea of major complications being mentioned on most Web sites. This analysis demonstrated several significant shortcomings in the quality of the information provided to potential donors for LDLT according to the EQIP instrument. We conclude that there is an urgent need to produce a Web site compliant with international standards for the quality of donor information.

Are informed consent forms for organ transplantation and donation too difficult to read?

Informed consent for organ transplantation and donation is an ethical obligation, legally required, and considered as part of the Patient's Rights Condition of Medicare Participation for hospitals. National policy-makers recommend that informed consent forms and patient education materials be written at a low reading level (5th-8th grade level) to facilitate patient comprehension. We assessed reading levels of informed consent forms (CFs) for adult organ transplant recipients and living organ donors across US transplant centers. CFs were analyzed using three measures of reading level: Lexile Measure, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and the Gunning Fog Index. Of active transplant centers contacted (N=209), 75 (36%) sent a total of 332 CFs. CFs were written, on average, at the college level, which is a considerably higher reading level than the standards set by policy-makers. CF reading levels were negatively correlated with transplant center volume (r=-0.119; p<0.03). CFs for intestine transplantation and for evaluation/listing were the easiest to read, while consent forms for liver transplantation/donation and pre-transplant agreements were the most difficult to read. Reducing CFs' reading level may help to increase patient comprehension for adequate informed consent.

Analysis of the factors influencing living kidney donation: the experience in National Taiwan University Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplantation provides a choice of active treatment for patients with chronic renal failure. However, the sources of organs are limited; therefore, living kidney donation is an alternative source. The regulation of organ donation in Taiwan stipulates that living organ donation is restricted to living related recipients. We sought to investigate factors that influenced or prevented individuals from living kidney donation in our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2008, there were 266 potential candidates who underwent evaluation for living kidney donation in our center.

RESULTS

Among the potential candidates, most were spouses (n=85, 31.9%), followed by parents (n=67, 25.1%), siblings (n=62, 23.3%), and children (n=40, 15%). Eventually, 124 candidates (47%) completed organ donation, most of whom were siblings (n=39, 31.5%), then parents (n=38, 30.6%), spouses (n=26), and children (n=18). Most donors were females, including mothers and sisters. The most frequent reason to not donate was unwillingness, due to potential influences on their health, economic stress due to suspension of their job, and objection of family members. In 34 candidates (23.9%), adverse health factors of potential candidates prohibited them from donating, including age, chronic medical illness, hepatitis carrier status, severe depression, or mental retardation. Among 59 potential donor-recipient pairs with incompatible ABO blood types or highly sensitized to potential donors, 22 candidates completed living kidney donation.

CONCLUSION

Although laparoscopic nephrectomy for living kidney donation decreases the discomfort and hospital stay after donation, we can only promote living kidney donation if we can deal with the possible factors that prohibit candidates from living kidney donation, such as morbidity after organ donation, anxiety, or other factors. After analyzing those factors, we must also develop a protocol to closely follow the living kidney donors to ensure their health status and relieve their anxiety.