Investigating strategies to improve AccesS to Kidney transplantation (the ASK trial): a protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial with parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The UK's living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) activity falls behind that of many other countries internationally, with less than 20% of those eligible receiving a LDKT each year. Certain individuals with kidney disease in the UK appear to be particularly disadvantaged in accessing a LDKT; the most socioeconomically deprived people with kidney disease are 60% less likely to receive a LDKT than the least deprived. Improving equity in living-donor kidney transplantation has been highlighted as an international research priority. METHODS: This feasibility trial was designed to determine the feasibility of delivery and acceptability of a multicomponent intervention designed to improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation. The intervention comprises three main components: (i) a meeting between a home educator and the transplant candidate for a dedicated discussion about living-donor kidney transplantation, living kidney donation and potential donors; (ii) a standardized letter from a healthcare professional to a candidate's potential donors and (iii) a home-based education and family engagement session including two home educators, the transplant candidate and their family. The primary objectives are to establish the feasibility (i) of delivering the developed intervention in existing care pathways and (ii) of undertaking a randomised controlled trial of the intervention. A mixed-methods parallel process evaluation will investigate the acceptability, implementation and mechanisms of impact of the intervention. The trial is based at two UK hospitals: a transplanting hospital and a non-transplanting referral hospital. Individuals are eligible if they are ≥ 18 years old, are active on the kidney transplant waiting list or have been referred for transplant listing and do not have a potential living-donor undergoing surgical assessment. Randomisation will be undertaken with concealed allocation. Participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to (i) the intervention or (ii) usual care, stratified by site to ensure a balance in terms of local differences. Minimisation will be used to ensure balance in sex, age group and socioeconomic strata, with probability weighting of 0.8 in order to reduce predictability. The primary outcomes are recruitment (% of those eligible and invited who consent to randomisation) and retention (% of participants completing follow-up). DISCUSSION: Findings will inform the design of a future fully powered, randomised controlled trial to formally evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention at improving equitable access to living-donor kidney transplantation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10989132 Applied 30/10/20.

The experiences of UK-Chinese individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative interview study.

Infectious disease outbreaks have historically been associated with stigmatisation towards minority groups, specifically those associated with the geographical region that the disease was first identified. We aimed to investigate how the emerging COVID-19 pandemic was experienced by UK-resident individuals of Chinese ethnicity: how their perceived cultural and ethnic identity influenced their experiences, and how early insights into the pandemic in China influenced attitudes and behaviours. We undertook in-depth semi-structured interviews with individuals who self-identified as UK-Chinese. Participants were recruited from three cities in the UK. Interviews were undertaken over the telephone between 9th April 2020 and 16th July 2020. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Sixteen individuals were interviewed. Three main themes were identified: (1) Attribution of stigma, (2) Pandemic legacies, and (3) Individual versus societal responses. These reflected six sub-themes: (1) Stigmatisation through (mis)identity, (2) Markers of pandemic awareness, (3) Legacies of previous pandemics, (4) Ascription of blame, (5) Extent of freedom, and (6) Implicit faith in government. Experiences of xenophobia included accounts of physical violence. UK-Chinese individuals experienced and perceived widespread xenophobia, in the context of media representations that ascribed blame and exacerbated stigmatisation. Prior experience of respiratory epidemics, and insight into the governmental and societal response in China, contributed to the early adoption of face masks. This in turn marked UK-Chinese individuals as targets for abuse. Awareness is needed to safeguard stigmatized groups from social and economic harm in future infectious disease pandemics.

Mixed-methods research in nephrology.

Mixed-methods research involves the mixing of at least 1 qualitative and 1 quantitative method in the same research project or set of related projects. Combined use of qualitative and quantitative research methods in nephrology has increased over the last 10 years. In this review, we aim to advance the understanding of mixed-methods research within the kidney community. Qualitative and quantitative techniques provide different but noncompeting representations of what exists in the world; findings from qualitative research do not generalize to a large population, whereas those from quantitative research may not apply to individuals within the diverse and heterogeneous larger population. Mixed-methods research combines these complementary representations, allowing the strengths of each method to be combined and the strengths of 1 method to address the limitations of the other. Mixed-methods approaches can be used to: (i) gain a more complete understanding of a research problem, (ii) explain initial results from one method with results from another, (iii) generate instruments, for example, survey tools and interventions, (iv) evaluate services, and (v) optimize clinical trial design and delivery. There are 3 core mixed-methods designs: explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential, and convergent parallel, which can be combined. We discuss each design in turn before discussing analysis and integration of findings from the different methods. We provide case studies that illustrate the application of these study designs to kidney research questions. We briefly discuss mixed-methods systematic reviews and evidence synthesis before finally highlighting guidance on how to appraise published mixed-methods research.

Expectations of a new opt-out system of consent for deceased organ donation in England: A qualitative interview study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020 England moved to an opt-out deceased donation law. We aimed to investigate the views of a mixed stakeholder group comprising people with kidney disease, family members and healthcare practitioners towards the change in legislation. We investigated the expected impacts of the new legislation on deceased-donor and living-donor transplantation, and views on media campaigns regarding the law change. METHODS: We undertook in-depth qualitative interviews with people with kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4) and healthcare practitioners (n = 15). Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity for patients and healthcare practitioners. Family members were recruited through snowball sampling and posters. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes with six subthemes were identified: (i) Expectations of impact (Hopeful patients; Cautious healthcare professionals), (ii) Living-donor transplantation (Divergent views; Unchanged clinical recommendations), (iii) Media campaigns (Single message; Highlighting recipient benefits). Patients expected the law change would result in more deceased-donor transplant opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should ensure patients and families are aware of the current evidence regarding the impact of opt-out consent: expectations of an increased likelihood of receiving a deceased-donor transplant are not currently supported by the evidence. This may help to prevent a decline in living-donor transplantation seen in other countries with similar legislation. Media campaigns should include a focus on the impact of organ receipt. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient representatives from the Kidney Disease Health Integration Team, Primrose Granville and Soumeya Bouacida, contributed to the content and design of the study documents.

Development of an intervention to improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation (the ASK study).

A living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is one of the best treatments for kidney failure. The UK's LDKT activity falls behind that of many other countries, and there is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access. We aimed to develop a UK-specific multicomponent intervention to support eligible individuals to access a LDKT. The intervention was designed to support those who are socioeconomically-deprived and currently disadvantaged, by targeting mediators of inequity identified in earlier work. We identified three existing interventions in the literature which target these mediators: a) the Norway model (healthcare practitioners contact patients' family with information about kidney donation), b) a home education model, and c) a Transplant candidate advocate model. We undertook intervention development using the Person-Based Approach (PBA). We performed in-depth qualitative interviews with people with advanced kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4), and renal and transplant healthcare practitioners (n = 15), analysed using thematic analysis. We investigated participant views on each proposed intervention component. We drafted intervention resources and revised these in light of comments from qualitative 'think-aloud' interviews. Four general themes were identified: i) Perceived cultural and societal norms; ii) Influence of family on decision-making; iii) Resource limitation, and iv) Evidence of effectiveness. For each intervention discussed, we identified three themes: for the Norway model: i) Overcoming communication barriers and assumptions; ii) Request from an official third party, and iii) Risk of coercion; for the home education model: i) Intragroup dynamics; ii) Avoidance of hospital, and iii) Burdens on participants; and for the transplant candidate advocates model: i) Vested interest of advocates; ii) Time commitment, and iii) Risk of misinformation. We used these results to develop a multicomponent intervention which comprises components from existing interventions that have been adapted to increase acceptability and engagement in a UK population. This will be evaluated in a future randomised controlled trial.

Mediators of Socioeconomic Inequity in Living-donor Kidney Transplantation: Results From a UK Multicenter Case-Control Study.

There is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplantation, but limited evidence as to why. We investigated possible mediators of the inequity. METHODS: This questionnaire-based case-control study included 14 UK hospitals. Participants were adults transplanted between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017. Living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (cases) were compared with deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients (controls). We collected data on mediators identified in earlier qualitative work: perceived social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12), patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13), and LDKT knowledge (Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test). We performed mediation analyses to investigate what proportion of the effect of socioeconomic position (education and income) on case-control status was mediated by these variables. RESULTS: One thousand two-hundred and forty questionnaires were returned (40% response). Receipt of an LDKT over a deceased-donor kidney transplant was associated with higher socioeconomic position [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) university degree versus no degree aOR = 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.84), P = 0.001 and aOR per +£1000 increase in monthly household income after tax 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.17), P < 0.001] higher perceived social support (aOR per +1-point Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12 score = 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08), P < 0.001), higher levels of patient activation (aOR per +1 patient activation measure level = 1.35 (95% CI, 1.24-1.48), P < 0.001), and greater LDKT knowledge (aOR per + 1-point Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test score = 1.59 (95% CI, 1.49-1.69), P < 0.001). Mediation analyses revealed that perceived social support, patient activation, and LDKT knowledge together mediate 48.5% (95% CI, 12.7-84.3, P = 0.008) of the association between university education and LDKT status, and 46.0% (95% CI, 28.7-63.4, P < 0.001) of the association between income and LDKT status. CONCLUSIONS: LDKT knowledge, perceived social support, and patient activation are associated with the socioeconomic position of people with kidney disease, and mediate approximately 50% of the association between the socioeconomic position and receipt of an LDKT. Interventions that target these factors may redress observed socioeconomic inequity.

Beliefs of UK Transplant Recipients about Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation: Findings from a Multicentre Questionnaire-Based Case-Control Study.

Differing beliefs about the acceptability of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) have been proposed as explaining age, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in their uptake. We investigated whether certain patient groups hold beliefs incompatible with LDKTs. This questionnaire-based case-control study was based at 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants were adults transplanted between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2017. LDKT recipients were compared to deceased-donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients. Beliefs were determined by the direction and strength of agreement with ten statements. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association between beliefs and LDKT versus DDKT. Sex, age, ethnicity, religion, and education were investigated as predictors of beliefs. A total of 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). DDKT and LDKT recipients responded in the same direction for 9/10 statements. A greater strength of agreement with statements concerning the 'positive psychosocial effects' of living kidney donation predicted having an LDKT over a DDKT. Older age, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) group ethnicity, and having a religion other than Christianity were associated with greater degree of uncertainty regarding a number of statements, but there was no evidence that individuals in these groups hold strong beliefs against living kidney donation and transplantation. Interventions should address uncertainty, to increase LDKT activity in these groups.