ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have indicated decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) shortly after kidney donation, returning to baseline in the longer term. However, a subgroup of donors experiences persistent HRQoL problems. To identify which HRQoL aspects are impacted most by the donation and to identify at-risk donors, more specific insight into psychosocial donation consequences is needed. METHODS: The current study examined the HRQoL course, donor-perceived consequences of donation for donors, recipients and donor-recipient relationships, and regret up to 12 months post-donation in donors from seven Dutch transplantation centres. Kidney donor candidates (n = 588) completed self-report questionnaires early in the screening procedure, of which 361 (61%) donated their kidney. RESULTS: Data for 230 donors (64%) with complete assessments before donation and 6 and 12 months post-donation were analysed. Results indicated that donor physical HRQoL was comparable at all time points, except for an increase in fatigue that lasted up to 12 months post-donation. Mental HRQoL decreased at 6 months post-donation, but returned to baseline at 12 months. Donors reported large improvements in recipient's functioning and a smaller influence of the recipient's kidney disease or transplantation on the donor's life over time. A subgroup experienced negative donation consequences with 14% experiencing regret 12 months post-donation. Predictors of regret were more negative health perceptions and worse social functioning 6 months post-donation. The strongest baseline predictors of higher fatigue levels after donation were more pre-donation fatigue, worse general physical functioning and a younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should examine predictors of HRQoL after donation to improve screening and to provide potential interventions in at-risk donors.
Subject(s)
Emotions , Kidney Transplantation/psychology , Living Donors/psychology , Quality of Life/psychology , Adult , Aged , Fatigue , Female , Humans , Interpersonal Relations , Kidney/surgery , Kidney Transplantation/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Nephrectomy/psychology , Netherlands/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Self Report , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tissue and Organ Harvesting , Young AdultABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Data Anonymization , Kidney Transplantation , Living Donors , Tissue and Organ Harvesting , Transplant Recipients , Adult , Attitude , Data Anonymization/ethics , Data Anonymization/psychology , Family/psychology , Female , Humans , Kidney Transplantation/ethics , Kidney Transplantation/methods , Kidney Transplantation/statistics & numerical data , Living Donors/psychology , Living Donors/statistics & numerical data , Male , Netherlands , Personal Satisfaction , Personally Identifiable Information , Public Opinion , Sweden , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/ethics , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/methods , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/psychology , Transplant Recipients/psychology , Transplant Recipients/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Preserving kidney function and prevention of cardiovascular disease can only be achieved if patients are supported in self-managing their disease aimed at developing coping strategies. OBJECTIVES: In MASTERPLAN, a clinical trial from 2005 -2010, patients with chronic kidney disease were randomised to receive nurse practitioner (NP) support or physician care alone. We evaluated the role of NP and patients in achieving lifestyle treatment goals. However the evaluation of lifestyle interventions resulted in disappointing findings. DESIGN: We conducted a mixed method study to explain the previous quantitative results in order to achieve a more complete description of the practice of reaching lifestyle goals. PARTICIPANTS: Ten NPs in nine participating hospitals of the MASTERPLAN study were interviewed and identified a hierarchy on what treatment goals received the most attention during MASTERPLAN, at baseline and after four years. RESULTS: A shift of attention in study goals occured for various reasons e.g. progression of disease, too many goals, non-motivated patients, changed relationship between NP and patient. Different strategies were used to influence lifestyle change with varying degrees of success. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle change is difficult to maintain during five years follow up. Besides a shift of attention in study goals, the relationship with the patient also changed over time.