Co-design and usability of an interactive web-based fertility decision aid for transgender youth and young adults.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a patient- and family-centered Aid For Fertility-Related Medical Decisions (AFFRMED) interactive website targeted for transgender and nonbinary (TNB) youth/young adults and their parents to facilitate shared decision-making about fertility preservation interventions through user-centered participatory design. METHOD: TNB youth/young adults interested in or currently receiving pubertal suppression or gender-affirming hormone treatment and parents of eligible TNB youth/young adults were recruited to participate in a series of iterative human-centered co-design sessions to develop an initial AFFRMED prototype. Subsequently, TNB youth/young adults and parents of TNB youth/young adults were recruited for usability testing interviews, involving measures of usability (i.e., After Scenario Questionnaire, Net Promotor Score, System Usability Scale). RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants completed 18 iterative co-design sessions and provided feedback on 10 versions of AFFRMED (16 TNB youth/young adults and 11 parents). Nine TNB youth/young adults and six parents completed individual usability testing interviews. Overall, participants rated AFFRMED highly on measures of acceptability, appropriateness, usability, and satisfaction. However, scores varied by treatment cohort, with TNB youth interested in or currently receiving pubertal suppression treatment reporting the lowest usability scores. CONCLUSIONS: We co-created a youth- and family-centered fertility decision aid prototype that provides education and decision support in an online, interactive format. Future directions include testing the efficacy of the decision aid in improving fertility and fertility preservation knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decision satisfaction.

Disparities Persist Among Hispanic Patients: Completing Evaluation, Waitlisting, and Receiving a Kidney Transplant.

Background: Hispanic patients receive disproportionately fewer kidney transplants (KT) than non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients. In this observational study, we evaluated disparities in completing evaluation steps to KT among Hispanic patients. Methods: Using medical records of Hispanic and NHW patients initiating evaluation at 4 transplant centers from January 2011 to March 2020, we performed sequential Cox models to compare Hispanic versus NHW patients reaching each step of the evaluation process until receiving a KT. Results: Among all 5197 patients (Hispanic n = 2473; NHW n = 2724) initiating evaluation, Hispanic patients had 8% lower risk to be approved by the kidney pancreas (KP) committee than NHW patients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.86-0.98; P = 0.015). Among 3492 patients approved by the KP committee, Hispanic patients had 13% lower risk to be waitlisted than NHW patients (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94; P = 0.004). Among 3382 patients who were waitlisted, Hispanic patients had 11% lower risk than NHW patients to receive KT (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97; P = 0.011). Among all patients initiating evaluation, Hispanic patients had a 16% lower risk than NHW patients to reach KT (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.92; P = 0.0002). Conclusions: Our study found that disproportionately fewer Hispanic patients were approved by the KP committee, were waitlisted, and received a KT, particularly a living donor kidney transplant, than NHW patients. Closer oversight of the evaluation process may help patients overcome challenges in access to KT.

Improving Health Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Application of an Implementation Science Framework.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve racial equity in access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT) have focused primarily on patients, ignoring the contributions of clinicians, transplant centers, and health system factors. Obtaining access to LDKT is a complex, multi-step process involving patients, their families, clinicians, and health system functions. An implementation science framework can help elucidate multi-level barriers to achieving racial equity in LDKT and guide the implementation of interventions targeted at all levels. METHODS: We adopted the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), an implementation science framework for racial equity in LDKT. The purpose was to provide a guide for assessment, inform intervention design, and support planning for the implementation of interventions. RESULTS: We applied 4 main PRISM domains to racial equity in LDKT: Organizational Characteristics, Program Components, External Environment, and Patient Characteristics. We specified elements within each domain that consider perspectives of the health system, transplant center, clinical staff, and patients. CONCLUSION: The applied PRISM framework provides a foundation for the examination of multi-level influences across the entirety of LDKT care. Researchers, quality improvement staff, and clinicians can use the applied PRISM framework to guide the assessment of inequities, support collaborative intervention development, monitor intervention implementation, and inform resource allocation to improve equity in access to LDKT.

Development of a culturally targeted chatbot to inform living kidney donor candidates of African ancestry about APOL1 genetic testing: a mixed methods study.

Clinical chatbots are increasingly used to help integrate genetic testing into clinical contexts, but no chatbot exists for Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic testing of living kidney donor (LKD) candidates of African ancestry. Our study aimed to culturally adapt and assess perceptions of the Gia® chatbot to help integrate APOL1 testing into LKD evaluation. Ten focus groups and post-focus group surveys were conducted with 54 LKDs, community members, and kidney transplant recipients of African ancestry. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Key themes about making Gia culturally targeted included ensuring: (1) transparency by providing Black LKDs' testimonials, explaining patient privacy and confidentiality protections, and explaining how genetic testing can help LKD evaluation; (2) content is informative by educating Black LKDs about APOL1 testing instead of aiming to convince them to undergo testing, presenting statistics, and describing how genetic discrimination is legally prevented; and (3) content avoids stigma about living donation in the Black community. Most agreed Gia was neutral and unbiased (82%), trustworthy (82%), and words, phrases, and expressions were familiar to the intended audience (85%). Our culturally adapted APOL1 Gia chatbot was well regarded. Future research should assess how this chatbot could supplement provider discussion prior to genetic testing to scale APOL1 counseling and testing for LKD candidate clinical evaluation.

A Delphi Panel Study for Public Education about Vascularized Composite Allograft Donation in the United States.

Introduction: Improving public awareness about the opportunity to become a vascularized composite allograft (VCA) donor is crucial to increasing access to organs. Prior research identified a need for comprehensive and comprehensible public education materials. A 2-round Delphi panel was conducted to garner US expert consensus on the topics and language to include in public education materials via an organ procurement organization-hosted website. Methods: The round 1 survey assessed the importance of educational topics and statements (n = 19) using 5-point Likert scales. The round 2 survey asked experts to rate new and repeated educational topics (n = 27). Open-ended comment boxes elicited experts' feedback and language revisions for educational statements. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid qualitative analysis. Findings: Eighteen experts responded to the round 1 survey and 15 to round 2. After round 2, 20 topics had mean (M) importance greater than neutral (M > 3.00) and were retained in the educational materials. The 5 most important topics by mean Likert ratings were: consent process for donation (M = 4.73), potential recipients (M = 4.73), most common vascularized composite organs transplanted (M = 4.47), purpose (M = 4.47), and definition (M = 4.47). Seven themes emerged from experts' open-ended comments about the importance and language of educational statements. Conclusions: Delphi panel findings identified expert-endorsed topics and educational statements for public education about vascularized composite organ donation via an educational website. Future research should assess the website's impact on public knowledge of VCA donation.

Knowledge gaps in heart and lung donation after the circulatory determination of death: Report of a workshop of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In a workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified current knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the scientific, conceptual, and ethical understanding of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death and its technologies. To minimize organ injury from warm ischemia and produce better recipient outcomes, innovative techniques to perfuse and oxygenate organs postmortem in situ, such as thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion, are being implemented in several medical centers in the US and elsewhere. These technologies have improved organ outcomes but have raised ethical and legal questions. Re-establishing donor circulation postmortem can be viewed as invalidating the condition of permanent cessation of circulation on which the earlier death determination was made and clamping arch vessels to exclude brain circulation can be viewed as inducing brain death. Alternatively, TA-NRP can be viewed as localized in-situ organ perfusion, not whole-body resuscitation, that does not invalidate death determination. Further scientific, conceptual, and ethical studies, such as those identified in this workshop, can inform and help resolve controversies raised by this practice.

Defining the Need for Causal Inference to Understand the Impact of Social Determinants of Health: A Primer on Behalf of the Consortium for the Holistic Assessment of Risk in Transplantation (CHART).

Objective: This study aims to introduce key concepts and methods that inform the design of studies that seek to quantify the causal effect of social determinants of health (SDOH) on access to and outcomes following organ transplant. Background: The causal pathways between SDOH and transplant outcomes are poorly understood. This is partially due to the unstandardized and incomplete capture of the complex interactions between patients, their neighborhood environments, the tertiary care system, and structural factors that impact access and outcomes. Designing studies to quantify the causal impact of these factors on transplant access and outcomes requires an understanding of the fundamental concepts of causal inference. Methods: We present an overview of fundamental concepts in causal inference, including the potential outcomes framework and direct acyclic graphs. We discuss how to conceptualize SDOH in a causal framework and provide applied examples to illustrate how bias is introduced. Results: There is a need for direct measures of SDOH, increased measurement of latent and mediating variables, and multi-level frameworks for research that examine health inequities across multiple health systems to generalize results. We illustrate that biases can arise due to socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and incongruencies in language between the patient and clinician. Conclusions: Progress towards an equitable transplant system requires establishing causal pathways between psychosocial risk factors, access, and outcomes. This is predicated on accurate and precise quantification of social risk, best facilitated by improved organization of health system data and multicenter efforts to collect and learn from it in ways relevant to specialties and service lines.