Search

There are three notable aspects of the current kidney replacement therapy program. First, the number of patients on home dialysis has dropped substantially over the last decades. Second, the rate of transplantation has stabilized in recent years. Third, there is variation in referral rate for transplantation among hospitals. These trends are the result of overutilization of in-center dialysis and that demand for kidney replacement therapy is moderated by suppliers. Current healthcare policy leads to overutilization of in-center dialysis and underutilization of home dialysis and transplantation. This overutilization is the result of supplier-induced demand and leads to suboptimal care for patients and excessive healthcare expenditures. The main drivers of this overutilization are the overcapacity of in-center dialysis beds and the high financial disincentives on empty dialysis beds. Policymakers should address this by reducing dialysis capacity and increasing the capacity of transplantation facilities. This is the first attempt to address the overutilization and the nonalignment of supply and demand by looking at the capacity of in-center dialysis and the financial disincentives for physicians on empty in-center dialysis beds. In our analysis, we conclude that limiting the capacity of in-center dialysis beds is the most effective strategy to better align supply and demand, which will result in better patient outcomes and lower societal costs.

Objectives The Kidney Team at Home program is an educational intervention aimed at patients with chronic kidney disease to assist them in their choice for kidney replacement therapy. Previous studies have shown that the intervention results in an increase in knowledge and communication on kidney replacement therapy, and eventually in an increase in the number of living donor kidney transplantations. The study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to standard care. Methods A dynamic probabilistic Markov model was used to estimate the monetary and health benefits of the intervention in The Netherlands over 10 years. Data on costs and health-related quality of life were derived from the literature. Transition probabilities, prevalence, and incidence rates were calculated using a large national database. An optimistic and a pessimistic implementation scenario were compared to a base case scenario with standard care. Results In both the optimistic and pessimistic scenario, the intervention is cost-effective and dominant compared to standard care: savings were €108,681,985 and €51,770,060 and the benefits were 1382 and 695 QALYs, respectively. Conclusions The superior cost-effectiveness of the intervention is caused by the superior health effects and the reduction of costs associated with transplantation, and the relatively small incremental costs of the intervention. The favorable findings of this implementation project resulted in national uptake of the intervention in The Netherlands as of 2021. This is the first time a psychosocial intervention has been implemented as part of standard care in a kidney replacement therapy program worldwide.

Summary Background The goal of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (BR) is to improve the quality of life of patients. However, complications following autologous (A-BR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (I-BR) occur frequently and may even lead to BR-failure, which can be a distressing event for both patients and surgeons. The current study therefore looks at the experiences of both patients and surgeons after a BR-failure. Methods Patients with a failed BR from a large multicenter cohort study and participating plastic surgeons were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews focusing on their experiences. The interviews were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory. Results Fourteen patients with a failed I-BR, four patients with a failed A-BR and four plastic surgeons participated. Three main categories emerged from the data: personal experiences with BR-failure, the motives for a redo of a failed BR, and patient-surgeon communication. Patients would like to be treated with more attention to their personal feelings and lives, instead of being approached from a purely medical-technical perspective. Surgeons may experience feelings of guilt leading to the strong urge to fix the failed BR, whereas patients may be less inclined to undergo additional operations. Patients want to know what the choice for a particular type of BR would mean to their personal lives. The impact of I-BR-failure may be underestimated and requires the same degree of intensive aftercare and attention. Conclusions Implementing the recommendations of this study in clinical practice may facilitate improvements in how both patients and surgeons cope with a BR-failure.

Abstract. Findings for the effectiveness of neurofeedback in autism spectrum disorder are found to be inconsistent. Therefore, this review comprehensively and systematically reviewed literature on the effectiveness of neurofeedback for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders in children. A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was carried out in October 2017 to find relevant papers. We selected full journal articles that reported neurofeedback as a treatment for autism in children (0–17 years). The search yielded 587 articles and we included 20 references with a total of 443 participants. Ninety-four percent of nonrandomized controlled and experimental trials concerning neurofeedback for autism spectrum disorders found positive results. The evidence for effectiveness of neurofeedback therapy was even more robust when only randomized controlled studies were considered. Although there are only a few randomized controlled studies, results support effectiveness of neurofeedback for autism spectrum disorder, including long-term positive effects. In the future, optimal treatment protocols have to be developed to guide clinicians in their neurofeedback treatment. In conclusion, neurofeedback seems to be an alternative treatment for autism spectrum disorders, with space for improvement.

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.

Background: Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. Methods: In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B). Results: In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0–18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0–17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (p < 0.0001), except for the long-term complications (p = 0.91). Conclusions: Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation.In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B).In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0-18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0-17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

Research has shown that a home-based educational intervention for patients with chronic kidney disease results in better knowledge and communication, and more living donor kidney transplantations (LDKT). Implementation research in the field of renal care is almost nonexistent. The aims of this study were (1) to demonstrate generalizability, (2) evaluate the implementation process, and (3) to assess the relationship of intervention effects on LDKT-activity. Eight hospitals participated in the project. Patients eligible for all kidney replacement therapies (KRT) were invited to participate. Effect outcomes were KRT-knowledge and KRT-communication, and treatment choice. Feasibility, fidelity, and intervention costs were assessed as part of the process evaluation. Three hundred and thirty-two patients completed the intervention. There was a significant increase in KRT-knowledge and KRT-communication among participants. One hundred and twenty-nine out of 332 patients (39%) had LDKT-activity, which was in line with the results of the clinical trials. Protocol adherence, knowledge, and age were correlated with LDKT-activity. This unique implementation study shows that the results in practice are comparable to the previous trials, and show that the intervention can be implemented, while maintaining quality. Results from the project resulted in the uptake of the intervention in standard care. We urge other countries to investigate the uptake of the intervention.

IntroductionUnequal access to kidney transplantation is suggested, but no systematic inventory exists about factors influencing access to kidney transplantation. There is an absence of any research that has combined stakeholder perspectives along the complete trajectory of transplantation. The present qualitative study explores the contributing factors from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in this trajectory, including patients, health professionals and health insurance and financial representatives in the Netherlands. Moreover, stakeholders will be invited to suggesting strategies and solutions for handling the facilitating and hindering factors found. By means of interaction, stakeholder groups will arrive at a consensus for new policymaking in the field of a Dutch transplantation care.Methods and analysisThe different stakeholders’ perspectives and possible solutions will be explored by interviewing in three phases. In the first phase, stakeholders’ group perspectives will be explored with individual interviews and focus group interviews without confrontation of views from other perspectives. In the second phase of focus group interviewing, perspectives will be confronted with the other stakeholders’ perspectives assessed. Finally, in the third phase, stakeholders will be invited to focus group discussions for suggesting solutions to overcome barriers and promote facilitators for improving access to transplantation. Approximately, groups from six to twelve participants per focus group and four to maximal six focus groups will be held per stakeholder, depending on the level of saturation, as prescribed by grounded theory. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and qualitative data will be analysed according to the principles of grounded theory supported by using NVivo software.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, has approved this study. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and major international conferences.

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

Objectives This study examined whether kidney patients want to participate in decisions regarding the minimal acceptable quality of deceased donor kidneys. We also explored patients' opinions about the trade-off between a higher-quality organ with a longer waiting time vs a lower-quality organ with a shorter waiting time. Methods A questionnaire was distributed among kidney patients. Additionally, a sub-sample of these patients participated in in-depth interviews, which were analyzed using the grounded theory approach. Results Sixty-three percent of the patients wished to participate in decisions concerning the quality of a deceased donor kidney. The majority of the respondents indicated that they prefer a kidney of good quality and would therefore accept a longer waiting time. Responses to the qualitative interviews illustrated a more balanced choice regarding this trade-off. Conclusions Many patients wish to be involved in deciding on the quality of the kidney, but it may evoke the experience of decisional conflicts when they have to make rational trade-offs between the desire for the best kidney at the expense of a longer waiting time.

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

IntroductionThere is a lot of speculation about why and how patients decide to use invasive treatment in an advanced stage of cancer, but the body of research is limited. The present longitudinal qualitative and quantitative study reflects real-life practice of pixantrone use and aims to collect data on patients’ considerations for, expectations of and experiences with pixantrone and trajectories in their quality-of-life (QoL) values in a Dutch clinical setting. Hence, two questions emerge. Why do patients choose for this treatment, while the treatment success rate is limited and curation cannot be achieved? And second, once chosen, what conditions would patients like to satisfy and how do they experience the treatment?Methods and analysisThis is a non-interventional longitudinal and multicentre study. Patients are eligible if they are >18 years, have never been treated with pixantrone before, have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≤2, have a relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and have been treated with at least two prior regimens. The decision to treat patients with pixantrone has been taken by the treating physician before patients are asked to participate in the study. If patients refuse study participation after being informed by the investigator, reasons for refusal (if given) will be recorded. Participants will receive at least three interviews accompanied by three QOL questionnaires. Based on the required sample size, we aim to include 20 patients over a period of 2 years.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, has approved this study. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and major international conferences. The study is non-interventional and falls therefore not under Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (In Dutch: Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen; WMO). Hence, this study is approved to be carried out in the Erasmus MC. Each other participating centre will receive this approval and will separately undergo the ethical approval to be able to participate. In addition to the ethical approval, the participating centres need to obtain written informed consent of their patients. Given the non-interventional nature of this study, a study registration was considered but deemed unnecessary. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Tokyo, Venice, Hong Kong and Somerset West amendments). A sequential identification number will be automatically attributed to each patient that has given consent to participate in the study. This number will identify the patient and must be included on all documents. Only the main researcher can link the code to the patient’s identity.

Knowledge is a prerequisite for promoting well-informed decision-making. Nevertheless, there is no validated and standardized test to assess the level of knowledge among renal patients regarding kidney disease and all treatment options. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of such a questionnaire for use in research and practice. A 30-item list was validated in four groups: (1) 187 patients on dialysis, (2) 82 patients who were undergoing living donor kidney transplantation the following day, (3) the general population of Dutch residents (n = 515) and (4) North American residents (n = 550). The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were examined using multidimensional item response theory (MIRT). Norm references were also calculated. Five items were found to distort ability estimates (Differential item functioning; DIF). MIRT analyses were subsequently carried out for the remaining 25 items. Almost all items showed good discrimination and difficulty parameters based on the fitted model. Two stable dimensions with 21 items were retrieved for which norm references for the Dutch and North American, dialysis and transplantation groups were calculated. This study resulted in a thorough questionnaire, the Rotterdam renal replacement knowledge-test, which enables reliable testing of patient's knowledge on kidney disease and treatment options in clinic and research.

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.

Evaluating a person's suitability for living organ donation is crucial, consisting not only of a medical but also of a thorough psychosocial screening. We performed a systematic literature review of guidelines, consensus statements, and protocols on the content and process of psychosocial screening of living kidney and liver donor candidates. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until June 22, 2011, following the PRISMA guidelines, complemented by scrutinizing guidelines databases and references of identified publications. Thirty-four publications were identified, including seven guidelines, six consensus statements, and 21 protocols or programs. Guidelines and consensus statements were inconsistent and lacked concreteness for both their content and process, possibly explaining the observed variability in center-specific evaluation protocols and programs. Overall, recommended screening criteria are not evidence-based and an operational definition of the concept "psychosocial" is missing, causing heterogeneity in terminology. Variation also exists on methods used to psychosocially evaluate potential donors. The scientific basis of predonation psychosocial evaluation needs to be strengthened. There is a need for high-quality prospective psychosocial outcome studies in living donors, a uniform terminology to label psychosocial screening criteria, and validated instruments to identify risk factors.

Background. We have observed a significant inequality in the number of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKT) performed between patients of non-Western European origin and those of Western European origin. The aim of this study was to investigate modifiable factors that could be used as potential targets for an intervention in an attempt to reduce this inequality. Methods. A questionnaire on knowledge, risk perception, communication, subjective norm, and willingness to accept LDKT was completed by 160 end-stage renal patients who were referred to the pretransplantation outpatient clinic (participation rate of 92%). The questionnaire was available in nine languages. Multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to explore differences between patients with and without a living donor. Results. There were significantly fewer patients of non-Western descent (11 of 82) that brought a living donor to the outpatient clinic than patients of Western descent (38 of 78). After correcting for the unmodifiable sociodemographic factors non-Western descent, low knowledge, little communication about their kidney disease, and low willingness to communicate with individuals from the social network about LDKT were significantly associated with the absence of a living donor. Conclusions. Knowledge and communication are identified as modifiable factors that are associated with the likelihood of identifying a potential living donor for LDKT. This observation makes knowledge and communication targets for interventions to reduce inequality in access to LDKT.

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.

Background Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the most successful form of renal replacement therapy in terms of wait time and survival rates. However, we observed a significant inequality in the number of LDKT performed between the Dutch and the non-Dutch patients. The objective of this study is to adapt, implement and test an educational home-based intervention to contribute to the reduction of this inequality. Our aim is to establish this through guided communication together with the social network of the patients in an attempt that well-informed decisions regarding renal replacement therapy can be made: Multisystemic Engagement & Nephrology. This manuscript is a detailed description of the Kidney Team At Home-study protocol. Methods and design All patients (>18 yrs) that are referred to the pre-transplantation outpatient clinic are eligible to participate in the study. Patients will be randomly assigned to either an experimental or a control group. The control group will continue to receive standard care. The experimental group will receive standard care plus a home-based educational intervention. The intervention consists of two sessions at the patient’s home, an initial session with the patient and a second session for which individuals from their social network are invited to take part. Based on the literature and behavioural change theories we hypothesize that reducing hurdles in knowledge, risk perception, subjective norm, self-efficacy, and communication contribute to well-informed decision making and reducing inequality in accessing LDKT programs. A change in these factors is consequently our primary outcome-measure. Based on power calculations, we aim to include 160 patients over a period of two years. Discussion If we are able to show that this home-based group educational intervention contributes to 1) achieving well-informed decision regarding treatment and 2) reducing the inequality in LDKT, the quality of life of patients will be improved while healthcare costs are reduced. As the intervention is investigated in a random heterogeneous patient group in daily practice, the transfer to clinical practice in other kidney transplant centers should be relatively easy. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR2730.

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.