Medical Distrust Among Kidney Transplant Candidates.

BACKGROUND: Medical distrust may hinder kidney transplantation (KT) access. Among KT candidates evaluated for waitlisting, we identified factors associated with high distrust levels and quantified their association with waitlisting. METHODS: Among 812 candidates (2018-2023), we assessed distrust using the Revised Health Care System Distrust Scale across composite, competence, and values subscales. We used linear regression to quantify the associations between candidate and neighborhood-level factors and distrust scores. We used Cox models to quantify the associations between distrust scores and waitlisting. RESULTS: At KT evaluation, candidates who were aged 35-49 years (difference = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.78-3.16), female (difference = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.23-1.97), and Black (difference = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.47-2.47) were more likely to report higher composite distrust score. For subscales, candidates aged 35-49 were more likely to have higher competence distrust score (difference = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.59-1.68) and values distrust score (difference = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.05-1.61). Race/ethnicity (Black, difference = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.76-2.07; Hispanic, difference = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.35-2.69) was only associated with higher values distrust scores. Female candidates reporting higher rescaled values distrust scores (each one point) had a lower chance of waitlisting (aHR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.98), whereas this association was not observed among males. Similarly, among non-White candidates, each 1-point increase in both rescaled composite (aHR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.99) and values (aHR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99) distrust scores was associated with a lower chance of waitlisting, while there was no association among White candidates. CONCLUSION: Female, younger, and non-White candidates reported higher distrust scores. Values distrust may contribute to the long-standing racial/ethnic and gender disparities in access to KT. Implementing tailored strategies to reduce distrust in transplant care may improve KT access for groups that experience persistent disparities.

Neighborhood Segregation and Access to Live Donor Kidney Transplantation.

Importance: Identifying the mechanisms of structural racism, such as racial and ethnic segregation, is a crucial first step in addressing the persistent disparities in access to live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Objective: To assess whether segregation at the candidate's residential neighborhood and transplant center neighborhood is associated with access to LDKT. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study spanning January 1995 to December 2021, participants included non-Hispanic Black or White adult candidates for first-time LDKT reported in the US national transplant registry. The median (IQR) follow-up time for each participant was 1.9 (0.6-3.0) years. Main Outcome and Measures: Segregation, measured using the Theil H method to calculate segregation tertiles in zip code tabulation areas based on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates, reflects the heterogeneity in neighborhood racial and ethnic composition. To quantify the likelihood of LDKT by neighborhood segregation, cause-specific hazard models were adjusted for individual-level and neighborhood-level factors and included an interaction between segregation tertiles and race. Results: Among 162 587 candidates for kidney transplant, the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (13.2) years, 65 141 (40.1%) were female, 80 023 (49.2%) were Black, and 82 564 (50.8%) were White. Among Black candidates, living in a high-segregation neighborhood was associated with 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.97]) lower access to LDKT relative to residence in low-segregation neighborhoods; no such association was observed among White candidates (P for interaction = .01). Both Black candidates (AHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-1.00]) and White candidates (AHR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]) listed at transplant centers in high-segregation neighborhoods had lower access to LDKT relative to their counterparts listed at centers in low-segregation neighborhoods (P for interaction = .64). Within high-segregation transplant center neighborhoods, candidates listed at predominantly minority neighborhoods had 17% lower access to LDKT relative to candidates listed at predominantly White neighborhoods (AHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]). Black candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers in predominantly minority neighborhoods had significantly lower likelihood of LDKT relative to White candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers located in predominantly White neighborhoods (65% and 64%, respectively). Conclusions: Segregated residential and transplant center neighborhoods likely serve as a mechanism of structural racism, contributing to persistent racial disparities in access to LDKT. To promote equitable access, studies should assess targeted interventions (eg, community outreach clinics) to improve support for potential candidates and donors and ultimately mitigate the effects of segregation.