Search

Objectives: Unspecified donors give a kidney to a stranger with end-stage kidney failure. There has been little research on the long-term impact of unspecified donation on mental health outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the positive and negative aspects of mental health among unspecified donors. Design: We invited all unspecified donors who donated a kidney between 2000 and 2016 at our centre to participate in an interview and to complete validated questionnaires. Methods: We measured positive mental health using the Dutch Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), psychological complaints using the Symptoms Checklist-90 (SCL-90) and psychiatric diagnoses using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) Screen for all donors and the M.I.N.I. Plus on indication. Results: Of the 134 eligible donors, 114 participated (54% female; median age 66 years), a median of 6 years post-donation. Scores on emotional and social well-being subscales of the MHC-SF were significantly higher than in the general population. Psychological symptoms were comparable to the general population. Thirty-two per cent of donors had a current or lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. Psychological symptoms did not significantly change between the pre-donation screening and the post-donation study. Conclusions: We concluded that, with the appropriate screening, unspecified donation is a safe procedure from a psychological perspective.

A high percentage of family refusal is found for several outcomes in the Donor Register. Misconceptions and concerns regarding donation impede next of kin from making a well-considered decision. The donation request is the moment in which such concerns should be addressed by the requestor. The Communication about Donation-Telephone Advice by Psychologist (CaD-TAP) is a direct telephone intervention for requestors who are about to request the relatives for donation. The aim of this intervention is to improve requestors' communication skills regarding the donation request and thereby increase the consent rate for organ and/or tissue donation. The intervention started on the April 1, 2014, and lasted until December 31, 2014. To determine the effects, the consent and assent rates were compared between requestors who received the CaD-TAP intervention and those who did not. The requestors who received the CaD-TAP intervention (N = 141) had a significantly (P < .001) higher consent rate (58%) compared with the group who did not receive the intervention (N = 1563, consent rate: 34%). More tissue donor requestors received the intervention (74%) and most interventions took place outside office hours (82%). No significant difference was found in the effect of the intervention with regard to type of donation, time, or day. Furthermore, the intervention increased requestors' self-confidence in requesting for donation (P < .001), and a higher self-confidence indicated a significant association with increased consent rate. The intervention is unanimously experienced as positive and valuable by users. Based on these results the intervention is effective in increasing the consent rate for organ and tissue donation.

The number of living kidney donations is increasing in many countries, in response to increasing demand, lengthening waiting lists for transplants from deceased donors, and, in some areas, cultural or religious resistance to deceased donation. In most such donations the donor and recipient are related genetically or emotionally, but there are various routes by which a donor may give a kidney to a recipient who is a stranger. The practice of paired, pooled or chained donation - in which a recipient receives an organ from a stranger, in return for which that recipient‘s emotionally or genetically related (but incompatible) donor gives a kidney to another stranger - is accepted and growing. In contrast, the selling of organs by donors is controversial and generally illegal, except in a few countries.

Thorough psychosocial screening of donor candidates is required in order to minimize potential negative consequences and to strive for optimal safety within living donation programmes. We aimed to develop an evidence-based tool to standardize the psychosocial screening process. Key concepts of psychosocial screening were used to structure our tool: motivation and decision-making, personal resources, psychopathology, social resources, ethical and legal factors and information and risk processing. We (i) discussed how each item per concept could be measured, (ii) reviewed and rated available validated tools, (iii) where necessary developed new items, (iv) assessed content validity and (v) pilot-tested the new items. The resulting ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT) consists of a selection of validated questionnaires (28 items in total), a semi-structured interview (43 questions) and a Red Flag Checklist. We outline optimal procedures and conditions for implementing this tool. The EPAT and user manual are available from the authors. Use of this tool will standardize the psychosocial screening procedure ensuring that no psychosocial issues are overlooked and ensure that comparable selection criteria are used and facilitate generation of comparable psychosocial data on living donor candidates. ispartof: Transplant International vol:31 issue:1 pages:56-70 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

Our aim was to develop and test an educational program to support well-informed decision making among patients and their social network regarding living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). One hundred sixty-three patients who were unable to find a living donor were randomized to standard care or standard care plus home-based education. In the education condition, patients and members of their social network participated in home-based educational meetings and discussed renal replacement therapy options. Patients and invitees completed pre-post self-report questionnaires measuring knowledge, risk perception, communication, self-efficacy and subjective norm. LDKT activities were observed for 6 months postintervention. Patients in the experimental group showed significantly more improvements in knowledge (p

Contains fulltext : 171827.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought. RESULTS: Outcome will be published in a scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5374; Pre-results.

Objective Despite living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) being the optimal treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease, we observed a significant inequality in the number of LDKT performed between patients of Dutch versus non-Dutch descent. We conducted a focus group study to explore modifiable hurdles to LDKT. Methods Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were conducted among 50 end-stage renal patients. Analyses were conducted according to ‘grounded theory’ using Atlas.ti. Results We found nearly all patients to be in favor of LDKT (96%). However, multiple factors played a role in considering LDKT. Four potentially modifiable hurdles were derived: (1) inadequate patient education, (2) impeding cognitions and emotions, (3) restrictive social influences, and (4) suboptimal communication. With regard to solutions, we found that our patients were open to home-based group education on renal replacement therapy options (88% in favor). Conclusion The study highlights the need for sensitivity and awareness of the influence of cultural factors on decision-making when discussing living donation with culturally diverse populations. Practice implications Since the majority of our patients were open to a tailored group education in their own homes, we see this as an opportunity to address factors that influence equality in access to LDKT.

Terminal kidney patients are faced with lower quality of life, restricted diets and higher morbidity and mortality rates while waiting for deceased donor kidney transplantation. Fortunately, living kidney donation has proven to be a better treatment alternative (e.g. in terms of waiting time and graft survival rates). We observed an inequality in the number of living kidney transplantations performed between the non-European and the European patients in our center. Such inequality has been also observed elsewhere in this field and it has been suggested that this inequality relates to, among other things, attitude differences towards donation based on religious beliefs. In this qualitative research we investigated whether religion might indeed (partly) be the explanation of the inequalities in living donor kidney transplants (LDKT) among non-European patients. Fifty patients participated in focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. The interviews were conducted following the focus group method and analyzed in line with Grounded Theory. The qualitative data analyses were performed in Atlas.ti. We found that religion is not perceived as an obstacle to living donation and that religion actually promotes helping and saving the life of a person. Issues such as integrity of the body were not seen as barriers to LDKT. We observed also that there are still uncertainties and a lack of awareness about the position of religion regarding living organ donation within communities, confusion due to varying interpretations of Holy Scriptures and misconceptions regarding the process of donation. Faith leaders play an important educational role and their opinion is influential. This study has identified modifiable factors which may contribute to the ethnic disparity in our living donation program. We argue that we need to strive for more clarity and awareness regarding the stance of religion on the issue of living donation in the local community. Faith leaders could be key figures in increasing awareness and alleviating uncertainty regarding living donation and transplantation.