Twenty Years of Unspecified Kidney Donation: Unspecified Donors Looking Back on Their Donation Experiences.

The Netherlands was the first European country to implement unspecified kidney donation in 2000. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the experiences of unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) in our transplant institute to improve the care for this valuable group of donors. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 106 UKDs who donated between 2000-2016 (response rate 84%). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and independently coded by 2 researchers in NVivo using thematic analysis. The following 14 themes reflecting donor experiences were found: Satisfaction with donation; Support from social network; Interpersonal stress; Complaints about hospital care; Uncertainty about donor approval; Life on hold between approval and actual donation; Donation requires perseverance and commitment; Recovery took longer than expected; Normalization of the donation; Becoming an advocate for living kidney donation; Satisfaction with anonymity; Ongoing curiosity about outcome or recipient; Importance of anonymous communication; Anonymity is not watertight. The data reinforced that unspecified kidney donation is a positive experience for donors and that they were generally satisfied with the procedures. Most important complaints about the procedure concerned the length of the assessment procedure and the lack of acknowledgment for UKDs from both their recipients and health professionals. Suggestions are made to address the needs of UKDs.

Donor and Recipient Perspectives on Anonymity in Kidney Donation From Live Donors: A Multicenter Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery. FACTORS: Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery. OUTCOMES: Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity. RESULTS: Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and after surgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains. LIMITATIONS: The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymity.

"What if this is my chance to save my life?" A semistructured interview study on the motives and experiences of end-stage renal disease patients who engaged in public solicitation of a living kidney donor.

The increase in patients using public solicitation (PS) to find a living kidney donor has generated a debate about the ethical complexities of PS. To investigate why patients engaged in PS and what they experienced during PS, we conducted semistructured interviews with 20 Dutch patients with end-stage renal disease who had publicly solicited a living donor. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. We identified ten themes on patients' considerations preceding PS: cautiousness in discussing living donation within social network; reluctance to accept a kidney from loved ones; rejection/withdrawal of related donor candidates; moral objections to paid donation; the ease of social media; encouraged by others; ends justifying the means; despair and urge to take action; public disclosure of vulnerability; fear of being (perceived to be) selfish. We identified nine themes on patients' experiences: positive emotions and support generated by action; genuine and ulterior motives for donation; patients acting as educators and screeners; time- and energy-consuming process; emotionally taxing process; positive interactions with donor candidates; feeling of dependency and obligation; limited cooperation from health professionals; demands a proactive attitude and media strategy. These results can inform and complement (existing) policies on PS and provide content for education of patients who are considering PS.

Toward a conditional approach to anonymity? An explorative multicenter longitudinal study among anonymous living kidney donors and recipients.

Anonymity between living donors and recipients is a topic of discussion among transplant professionals. This longitudinal study explored living kidney donors' and patients' perspectives on anonymity. Prior to surgery (T0) and 3 months afterward (T1), participants in unspecified or specified indirect donation programs completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes toward anonymity as well as demographic and medical characteristics. Nonparametric tests were used to assess group differences and associations. Participants were content with anonymity at T0 and T1. Fourteen and 23% wanted to meet at T0 and T1, respectively. If the other party expressed the wish to meet, 50% (T0) and 55% (T1) would be willing to meet. Most participants agreed that meeting should be allowed if both parties agree. Attitude toward anonymity did not differ between donors/recipients, nor between T0/T1 and unspecified/specified indirect donation programs. This study showed that most donors and recipients who participated in anonymous donation schemes are in favor of a conditional approach to anonymity. Guidelines on how to revoke anonymity if both parties agree are needed and should include education about pros and cons of (non-) anonymity and a logistical plan on how, when, where, and by whom anonymity should be revoked.

Early home-based group education to support informed decision-making among patients with end-stage renal disease: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to test the effectiveness of early home-based group education on knowledge and communication about renal replacement therapy (RRT). METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial using a cross-over design among 80 end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Between T0 and T1 (weeks 1-4) Group 1 received the intervention and Group 2 received standard care. Between T1 and T2 (weeks 5-8) Group 1 received standard care and Group 2 received the intervention. The intervention was a group education session on RRT options held in the patient's home given by social workers. Patients invited members from their social network to attend. Self-report questionnaires were used at T0, T1 and T2 to measure patients' knowledge and communication, and concepts from the Theory of Planned Behaviour such as attitude. Comparable questionnaires were completed pre-post intervention by 229 attendees. Primary RRT was registered up to 2 years post-intervention. Multilevel linear modelling was used to analyse patient data and paired t-tests for attendee data. RESULTS: Statistically significant increases in the primary targets knowledge and communication were found among patients and attendees after receiving the intervention. The intervention also had a significant effect in increasing positive attitude toward living donation and haemodialysis. Of the 80 participants, 49 underwent RRT during follow-up. Of these, 34 underwent a living donor kidney transplant, of which 22 were pre-emptive. CONCLUSIONS: Early home-based group education supports informed decision-making regarding primary RRT for ESRD patients and their social networks and may remove barriers to pre-emptive transplantation.

The impact of the donors' and recipients' medical complications on living kidney donors' mental health.

A minority of living kidney donors (between 5-25%) have poor psychological outcomes after donation. There is mixed evidence on the influence of medical complications on these outcomes. We examined whether medical complications among donors and recipients predicted changes in donors' mental health (psychological symptoms and well-being) between predonation and 1 year postdonation. One-hundred and forty-five donors completed questionnaires on mental health predonation and 3 and 12 months postdonation. Number of recipient rehospitalizations and donor complications (none; minor; or severe) were obtained from medical records at 3 and 12 months after surgery. Multilevel regression analyses were used to examine the association between medical complications and changes in donors' mental health over time after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. We found that donor complications (P = 0.003) and recipient rehospitalizations (P = 0.001) predicted an increase in donors' psychological symptoms over time. Recipient rehospitalizations also predicted a decrease in well-being (P = 0.005) over time; however, this relationship became weaker over time. We conclude that medical complications experienced by either the donor or recipient is a risk factor for deterioration in donors' mental health after living kidney donation. Professionals should monitor donors who experience medical complications and offer additional psychological support when needed.

Exploring Knowledge About Dialysis, Transplantation, and Living Donation Among Patients and Their Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: In order to make a well-considered decision and give informed consent about renal replacement therapy, potential living kidney donors and recipients should have sufficient understanding of the options and risks. PURPOSE: We aimed to explore knowledge about Dialysis & Transplantation (DT) and Living Donation (LD) among prospective living kidney donors and recipients. METHODS: Eighty-five donors and 81 recipients completed the Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge-Test (R3K-T) 1 day before surgery. The questionnaire was available in various languages. RESULTS: Recipients knew significantly more about DT than donors (p < 0.001); donors knew more about LD than recipients (p < 0.001). A minority of donors (15 %) and recipients (17 %) had a score that was comparable to the knowledge level of the naïve general population. Recipients and donors knew less about DT and LD if their native language was not Dutch. In addition, recipients knew less about DT if they were undergoing pre-emptive transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that recipients and donors retain different information. The decision to undergo living donation appears to be not always based on full knowledge of the risks. We recommend that professionals assess knowledge of prospective donors and recipients during the education process using the R3K-T, and extra attention is required for non-native speakers.

Living organ donation practices in Europe - results from an online survey.

In Europe, living organ donation (LOD) is increasingly accepted as a valuable solution to overcome the organ shortage. However, considerable differences exist between European countries regarding frequency, practices and acceptance of donor-recipient relations. As a response, the Coordination Action project 'Living Organ Donation in Europe' (www.eulod.eu), funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission, was initiated. Transplant professionals from 331 European kidney and liver transplant centres were invited to complete an online survey on living kidney donation (LKD) and living liver donation (LLD). In total, 113 kidney transplant centres from 40 countries and 39 liver transplant centres from 24 countries responded. 96.5% and 71.8% performed LKD and LLD respectively. The content of the medical screening of donors was similar, but criteria for donor acceptance varied. Few absolute contraindications for donation existed. The reimbursement policies diverged and the majority of the donors did not get reimbursed for their income loss during recovery. Large discrepancies were found between geographical European regions (the Eastern, the Mediterranean and the North-Western). As a result of this survey we suggest several recommendations to improve quality and safety of LOD in Europe.

A psychometric analysis of the Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge-Test (R3K-T) using item response theory.

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.

Multisystemic engagement and nephrology based educational intervention: a randomized controlled trial protocol on the KidneyTteam At Home study.

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.

Religious attitudes towards living kidney donation among Dutch renal patients.

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.

Positive and negative aspects of mental health after unspecified living kidney donation: A cohort study.

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.

Can we turn down autonomous wishes to donate anonymously?

Imagine a Samaritan living kidney donor, who some time ago has anonymously donated one of his kidneys to a patient on top of the waiting list. He now contacts the transplantation centre once again, to donate part of his liver. The Centre, startled by this idea, refers him to the regular screening procedure for all Samaritan donations. It turns out that his wish is well-informed, voluntarily made and that he is competent to decide. We acknowledge that a donor's wish should not be followed in all cases, even though this wish is a clear expression of his own free will. However, a refusal must be based on sound moral reasons and it is less clear what reasons these might be. We outline the most common arguments for refusal, assess these arguments in terms of strengths and weaknesses, and show which arguments, if any at all, are most promising. We conclude, firstly, that we should only assess risks (which include motivations), not judge relationships, and secondly, that it is not a transplant centre's mission to carry out a donor's life project.

Justification for a home-based education programme for kidney patients and their social network prior to initiation of renal replacement therapy.

In this article, an ethical analysis of an educational programme on renal replacement therapy options for patients and their social network is presented. The two main spearheads of this approach are: (1) offering an educational programme on all renal replacement therapy options ahead of treatment requirement and (2) a home-based approach involving the family and friends of the patient. Arguments are offered for the ethical justification of this approach by considering the viewpoint of the various stakeholders involved. Finally, reflecting on these ethical considerations, essential conditions for carrying out such a programme are outlined. The goal is to develop an ethically justified and responsible educational programme.

Pre-emptive live donor kidney transplantation-moving barriers to opportunities: An ethical, legal and psychological aspects of organ transplantation view.

Live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment modality for end stage renal disease (ESRD), enhancing patient and graft survival. Pre-emptive LDKT, prior to requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), provides further advantages, due to uraemia and dialysis avoidance. There are a number of potential barriers and opportunities to promoting pre-emptive LDKT. Significant infrastructure is needed to deliver robust programmes, which varies based on socio-economic standards. National frameworks can impact on national prioritisation of pre-emptive LDKT and supporting education programmes. Focus on other programme's components, including deceased kidney transplantation and RRT, can also hamper uptake. LDKT programmes are designed to provide maximal benefit to the recipient, which is specifically true for pre-emptive transplantation. Health care providers need to be educated to maximize early LDKT referral. Equitable access for varying population groups, without socio-economic bias, also requires prioritisation. Cultural barriers, including religious influence, also need consideration in developing successful outcomes. In addition, the benefit of pre-emptive LDKT needs to be emphasised, and opportunities provided to potential donors, to ensure timely and safe work-up processes. Recipient education and preparation for pre-emptive LDKT needs to ensure increased uptake. Awareness of the benefits of pre-emptive transplantation require prioritisation for this population group. We recommend an approach where patients approaching ESRD are referred early to pre-transplant clinics facilitating early discussion regarding pre-emptive LDKT and potential donors for LDKT are prioritized for work-up to ensure success. Education regarding pre-emptive LDKT should be the norm for patients approaching ESRD, appropriate for the patient's cultural needs and physical status. Pre-emptive transplantation maximize benefit to potential recipients, with the potential to occur within successful service delivery. To fully embrace preemptive transplantation as the norm, investment in infrastructure, increased awareness, and donor and recipient support is required.

Creating Options for Difficult-to-match Kidney Transplant Candidates.

BACKGROUND: Most transplantation centers recognize a small patient population that unsuccessfully participates in all available, both living and deceased donor, transplantation programs for many years: the difficult-to-match patients. This population consists of highly immunized and/or ABO blood group O or B patients. METHODS: To improve their chances, Computerized Integration of Alternative Transplantation programs (CIAT) were developed to integrate kidney paired donation, altruistic/unspecified donation, and ABO and HLA desensitization. To compare CIAT with reality, a simulation was performed, including all patients, donors, and pairs who participated in our programs in 2015-2016. Criteria for inclusion as difficult-to-match, selected-highly immunized (sHI) patient were as follows: virtual panel reactive antibody >85% and participating for 2 years in Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program. sHI patients were given priority, and ABO blood group incompatible (ABOi) and/or HLA incompatible (HLAi) matching with donor-specific antigen-mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) <8000 were allowed. For long-waiting blood group O or B patients, ABOi matches were allowed. RESULTS: In reality, 90 alternative program transplantations were carried out: 73 compatible, 16 ABOi, and 1 both ABOi and HLAi combination. Simulation with CIAT resulted in 95 hypothetical transplantations: 83 compatible (including 1 sHI) and 5 ABOi combinations. Eight sHI patients were matched: 1 compatible, 6 HLAi with donor-specific antigen-MFI <8000 (1 also ABOi), and 1 ABOi match. Six/eight combinations for sHI patients were complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match negative. CONCLUSIONS: CIAT led to 8 times more matches for difficult-to-match sHI patients. This offers them better chances because of a more favorable MFI profile against the new donor. Besides, more ABO compatible matches were found for ABOi couples, while total number of transplantations was not hampered. Prioritizing difficult-to-match patients improves their chances without affecting the chances of regular patients.

Raising awareness of unspecified living kidney donation: an ELPAT view.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease and unspecified living kidney donation is morally justified. Despite the excellent outcomes of LDKT, unspecified kidney donation (UKD) is limited to a minority of European countries due to legal constraints and moral objections. Consequently, there are significant variations in practice and approach between countries and the contribution of UKD is undervalued. Where UKD is accepted as routine, an increasing number of patients in the kidney exchange programme are successfully transplanted when a 'chain' of transplants is triggered by a single unspecified donor. By expanding the shared living donor pool, the benefit of LDKT is extended to patients who do not have their own living donor because a recipient on the national transplant list always completes the chain. Is there a moral imperative to increase the scope of UKD and how could this be achieved? METHODS: An examination of the literature and individual country practices was performed to identify the limitations on UKD in Europe and recommend strategies to increase transplant opportunities. RESULTS: Primary limitations to UKD, key players and their roles and responsibilities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Raising awareness to encourage the public to volunteer to donate is appropriate and desirable to increase UKD. Recommendations are made to provide a framework for increasing awareness and engagement in UKD. The public, healthcare professionals, policy makers and society and religious leaders have a role to play in creating an environment for change.

Unspecified live kidney donation by urological patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with benign kidney disorders undergoing nephrectomy have three possibilities: Autotransplantation, with a certain risk of complications, but without a clear benefit; discarding the kidney; or living kidney donation. AIM: To investigate whether patients with benign kidney disorders and a medical indication for nephrectomy are suitable as unspecified live kidney donors. METHODS: We searched all clinical data from 1994-2019 for unspecified donors and their transplant recipients (n = 160). Nine of these 160 donors had pre-existing kidney disorders necessitating nephrectomy and had decided to donate their kidney anonymously after discussing the possibility of kidney donation. We studied the clinical course of these nine donating patients and their transplant recipients. RESULTS: Seven of nine donating patients indicated unbearable loin pain as the main complaint, one donating patient refused ureterocutaneostomy and one had two aneurysms of the renal artery. Postoperatively, seven donating patients described absence of pain and one a significant reduction after the nephrectomy. The average 1-year creatinine level in the donating patients was 88 µmol/L and after a median of 6.9 years the average creatinine level was 86.6 µmol/L. In the transplant recipients, one major complication occurred which led to death and in one transplant recipient graft function failed to normalize at first but has been stable for nine years now. Currently, all transplant recipients are off dialysis. CONCLUSION: Our data show that patients undergoing nephrectomy as part of treatment in selected kidney disorders can function as live kidney donors.

Avoiding the issue: patients' (non)communication with potential living kidney donors.

OBJECTIVE: Kidney transplantation with a living donor has proved to be an effective solution for kidney patients on the waiting list for transplantation. Nevertheless, it may be difficult to find a living kidney donor. The purpose of this explorative study is to investigate how kidney transplant candidates may, or may not, find a living donor in the Netherlands. METHODS: We compared a group of 42 patients who did not find a living donor with a group of 42 patients who did, using semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: We found that, although almost all patients recognized the advantages of living kidney donation and were willing to accept the offer of a living kidney donor, many found it very difficult to ask a potential donor directly. This was true for both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients may gain from professional support to deal with this situation in ways that balance their medical needs and their personal relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Support programs should be developed to assist patients in developing strategies for discussing living kidney donation with potential donors.

Strategies to advance living kidney donation: a single center's experience.

In Europe, living kidney donation rates differ considerably from country to country. These differences are related to deceased kidney donation rates: countries with higher deceased donation rates have lower living donation rates. Despite the differences, all countries have one thing in common, namely, the shortage of kidneys for transplantation. Living kidney donation is a good option to alleviate these shortages. In our center, 60% to 70% of all kidney transplants come from living donors. This article describes various strategies that may have contributed to these high living donation rates: team attitude, educational materials and meetings, and alternative donation programs (exchange donation, domino-paired donation, Good Samaritan donation). Also described are some less conventional strategies for increasing rate of living kidney donation that are not used in the Netherlands but may offer some good perspectives (e.g., the "Norwegian approach" and home-based educational programs).