Interpersonal Connections Are Important for Virtual Kidney Transplant Educational Program Development.

Introduction: The Living Donor Navigator program is designed to mitigate disparities in living donor kidney transplantation, although geographic disparities in program participation were observed in the initial years of implementation. The purpose of this study was to understand participant perspectives regarding the use of a virtual option/alternative to expand program participation. Methods: Previous participants of the in-person navigator program were purposively sampled. Using the nominal group technique, a well-structured formative methodology to elicit participant perspectives, 2 meetings were conducted among transplant recipients and advocates (N = 13) to identify and prioritize responses to the question "What things would concern you about participating in a virtual and remote Living Donor Navigator program?" Findings: Mean participant age was 59.3 (9.3) years, and participants were 54% male and 62% white. Education levels varied from less than high school to master's degrees. Participants generated 70 unique responses, of which 36 (51.4%) received prioritization. The top 5 ranked responses of each nominal group technique meeting received approximately 50 percent (47.6% vs. 66.7%, respectively) of the total votes and described the potentially limited interpersonal connections, time conflicts, and differing content in a virtual navigator program compared to the in-person model. Discussion: These data suggest that previous participants were concerned with upholding the original design of the program, thus, virtual living donor kidney transplantation programs should aim to maintain interpersonal connections and consistency of content to ensure adequate programmatic engagement. Future research will focus on program fidelity independent of delivery modality.

Greater community vulnerability is associated with poor living donor navigator program fidelity.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors contribute to living donor kidney transplantation disparities but may also influence the interventions aimed to mitigate these disparities. The Living Donor Navigator Program was designed to separate the advocacy role from the patient in need of transplantation-friends/family are encouraged to participate as the patients' advocates to identify living donors, though some of the patients participate alone as self-advocates. Self-advocates have a lower living donor kidney transplantation likelihood compared to the patients with an advocate. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the patients' community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy as a surrogate for program fidelity. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 110 Living Donor Navigator participants (April 2017-June 2019). Program fidelity was assessed using the participants' advocacy status. Measures of community vulnerability were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, 19% (n = 21) were self-advocates. For every 10% increase in community-level vulnerability, patients had 17% higher risk of self-advocacy (adjusted relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.32, P = .01). Living in areas with greater unemployment (adjusted relative risk: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.33, P = .01), single-parent households (adjusted relative risk: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.42, P = .006), minority population (adjusted relative risk: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55, P = .02), or no-vehicle households (adjusted relative risk: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.35, P = .02) were associated with increased risk of self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: Having a greater community-level vulnerability was associated with poor Living Donor Navigator Program fidelity. The potential barriers identified using the Social Vulnerability Index may direct resource allocation and program refinement to optimize program fidelity and efficacy for all participants.

Impact of Social Vulnerability on Access to Educational Programming Designed to Enhance Living Donation.

INTRODUCTION: Transplant candidate participation in the Living Donor Navigator Program is associated with an increased likelihood of achieving living donor kidney transplantation; yet not every transplant candidate participates in navigator programming. RESEARCH QUESTION: We sought to assess interest and ability to participate in the Living Donor Navigator Program by the degree of social vulnerability. DESIGN: Eighty-two adult kidney-only candidates initiating evaluation at our center provided Likert-scaled responses to survey questions on interest and ability to participate in the Living Donor Navigator Program. Surveys were linked at the participant-level to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index and county health rankings and overall social vulnerability and subthemes, individual barriers, telehealth capabilities/ knowledge, interest, and ability to participate were assessed utilizing nonparametric Wilcoxon ranks sums tests, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Participants indicating distance as a barrier to participation in navigator programming lived approximately 82 miles farther from our center. Disinterested participants lived in areas with the highest social vulnerability, higher physical inactivity rates, lower college education rates, and higher uninsurance (lack of insurance) and unemployment rates. Similarly, participants without a computer, who never heard of telehealth, and who were not encouraged to participate in telehealth resided in areas of highest social vulnerability. CONCLUSION: These data suggest geography combined with being from under-resourced areas with high social vulnerability was negatively associated with health care engagement. Geography and poverty may be surrogates for lower health literacy and fewer health care interactions.

Obesity and long-term mortality risk among living kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Body mass index of living kidney donors has increased substantially. Determining candidacy for live kidney donation among obese individuals is challenging because many donation-related risks among this subgroup remain unquantified, including even basic postdonation mortality. METHODS: We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients linked to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to study long-term mortality risk associated with being obese at the time of kidney donation among 119,769 live kidney donors (1987-2013). Donors were followed for a maximum of 20 years (interquartile range 6.0-16.0). Cox proportional hazards estimated the risk of postdonation mortality by obesity status at donation. Multiple imputation accounted for missing obesity data. RESULTS: Obese (body mass index ≥ 30) living kidney donors were more likely male, African American, and had higher blood pressure. The estimated risk of mortality 20 years after donation was 304.3/10,000 for obese and 208.9/10,000 for nonobese living kidney donors. Adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, blood pressure, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, relationship to recipient, smoking, and year of donation, obese living kidney donors had a 30% increased risk of long-term mortality compared with their nonobese counterparts (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.09-1.60, P = .006). The impact of obesity on mortality risk did not differ significantly by sex, race or ethnicity, biologic relationship, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, or among donors who did and did not develop postdonation kidney failure. CONCLUSION: These findings may help to inform selection criteria and discussions with obese persons considering living kidney donation.