An investigation into the functional and psychosocial impact of living organ donation

General Abstract Objective: In April 2006, the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit (SLTU) became the first NHS transplant unit in the UK to offer the option of Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT). This represented a unique opportunity to evaluate the functional and psychosocial impact of LDLT upon healthy donors and their recipients. Subsequent aims were to investigate the challenge of introducing LDLT in Scotland and to establish the perceived deterrents and attractions of the procedure. An additional aim was to evaluate the impact of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) upon donors and recipients. Design: A series of cross sectional and longitudinal studies were designed for the purpose of this thesis (3 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods). Method: Self report questionnaires were used in each of the quantitative studies, with the addition of neuropsychological computerized tests in two studies. Semi-structured interviews were employed in the qualitative studies. Main Findings: •Prior to its introduction general support for the option of LDLT was found, although it was highlighted that the risk involved was not well understood by the general public. •Since becoming available LDLT has not been a readily acceptable treatment option from the perspective of patients due to the perceived risk for the donor, but it may be considered as a “last option”. Family members were motivated to save their loved one’s life but the personal implications of donating resulted in reconsideration of LDLT. • Staff at the SLTU perceived a lack of family commitment in relation to LDLT, which is explained as a cultural factor contributing to the slow uptake of LDLT. In Scotland, a donation from a younger to an older generation is not easily accepted. This, in addition to patients’ optimism that a deceased donation will arrive, and the poor health of potential donors, is thought to have affected the uptake of LDLT. As has the unit’s conservative approach to the promotion of LDLT. This approach is the result of a perceived reduction in the need for LDLT and a preference to avoid the risk to a healthy donor and conduct transplants with deceased donations. • In over 3 years, only one couple completed LDLT. The recipient showed functional and psychosocial improvement from pre to post procedure, whilst the donor showed slight deterioration in aspects of quality of life 6 weeks post donation, which did not always completely return to a baseline level by 6 months. The donor made sacrifices to provide her husband with a fresh start to life and unmet expectations were found to effect quality of life. •Willingness to become a liver donor is not thought to be influenced by the frame of the information provided. •Like the LDLT donor, LDKT donors experience some functional and psychosocial deterioration at 6 weeks post donation, but donors largely recover by 6 months post donation. However, the anticipated benefit to recipients was not evident and may not be quantifiable until after 6 months post operation. Conclusion: This thesis has added to current knowledge on living organ donation and specifically represents the first psychological evaluation of a UK LDLT programme. The slow uptake of LDLT was unexpected and has resulted in informative, novel research.