National Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation in the United States: Results of a Public Opinion Survey.

Rationale & Objective: Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups. Study Design: The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. Setting & Population: We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation. Analytical Approach: We developed summed, scaled indices to assess the association between the living kidney donation knowledge (9 items) and the willingness to donate (8 items) to self-reported demographic characteristics and other variables of interest using analysis of variance. All other associations for categorical questions were calculated using Pearson's χ2 and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. Results: Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate. Limitations: Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level. Conclusions: Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.

Understanding what the general public thinks about living kidney donation will help to develop better education and increase the number of living kidney donors. We surveyed the public to find out: (1) how aware they are about the opportunity to donate a kidney while alive; (2) how much they know about living kidney donation; (3) whether they would be willing to donate; and (4) what would affect their willingness to donate. We found that teaching people about the risks of donating, decreasing costs related to donation, and raising awareness about it could increase the number of people willing to donate.

The "oldest and coldest" shipped living donor kidneys transplanted through kidney paired donation.

To date, thousands of living donor kidneys have been shipped through kidney paired donation (KPD). To expand on this growing segment of living donor transplantation, we evaluated the effect of advanced age donation ("oldest kidneys") and prolonged cold ischemia time ("coldest kidneys") on graft function and survival using the National Kidney Registry database from February 2008 to May 2018. Donors were stratified by age at time of donation (<65 or ≥65 years) and kidneys were stratified by cold ischemia time (<16 or ≥16 hours). We evaluated delayed graft function and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) for up to seven posttransplant years. Of the 2363 shipped living donor kidney transplants, 4.1% of donors were ≥65 years and 6.0% of transplanted kidneys had cold ischemia times ≥16 hours. Delayed graft function and DCGF occurred in 5.2% and 4.7% of cases. There were no significant associations between delayed graft function and donor age (P = .947) or cold ischemia (P = .532). Donor age and cold ischemia time were not predictive of delayed graft function (OR = 0.86,1.20; P = .8, .6) or DCGF (HR = 1.38,0.35, P = .5, .1). These findings may alleviate concerns surrounding the utilization of kidneys from older donors or those originating from distant transplant centers.

Socioeconomic Status in Non-directed and Voucher-based Living Kidney Donation.

BACKGROUND: Little has been reported about the socioeconomic status (SES) and demographics of non-directed (altruistic) and voucher-based donation. OBJECTIVE: To analyze common characteristics amongst altruistic donors in order to promote non-directed and voucher-based donation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Information regarding altruistic donations from 2008 to 2015 and voucher-based donors was obtained from the National Kidney Registry. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: An SES index, created and validated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), was created by geocoding the donor's zip code and linking it to seven publicly available SES variables found in the 2010 United States Census data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 267 non-directed and 3 voucher-based donations were identified. Non-directed donors were predominantly female (58%), with an average age of 45.6 yr (range, 21-72). The mean SES index score was 55.6 (SD=3.2), which corresponds to the 77th percentile of 1.5 million MediCare beneficiaries as reported by the AHRQ in 2008. Voucher-based donors were Caucasian males of high SES. The study was limited by the number of voucher-based donations. CONCLUSIONS: Non-directed and voucher-based donors are in the upper end of the economic spectrum. The voucher-based program has built within it the inherent capacity to remove disincentives to donation, which currently limit altruistic donation. PATIENT SUMMARY: We wanted to determine what types of people donated their kidneys altruistically, so that we could understand how to motivate more people to donate their kidneys. The voucher-based program was recently started and is a promising tool to motivate many people to donate kidneys by removing major disincentives to donation.

Is donating a kidney to a friend bad for your marriage?

Studies have shown that kidney donation to a spouse has a positive impact on marriage. This study was done to evaluate the impact on marriage when donation occurs to someone other than the spouse. Two groups of donors from our centre who donated around the same period were studied: donation to a spouse (spouse donor (SD)) or to someone other than the spouse (non-spouse donor (ND)). A survey, the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale, was used to evaluate the effect of donation on the marriage. This tool consists of 14 questions that measure how satisfying and stable the relationship is. The results showed equal or better marriage scores in the ND group compared with the SD group. The NDs scored higher on two questions, one regarding agreement or disagreement on career choices (P = 0.05) and the other regarding the frequency of having stimulating exchanges of ideas with one's spouse (P = 0.02). With the highest possible total score of 69, NDs scored 53.4 and SDs scored 47.7 (P = 0.16). Scores of 47 and below indicate marital distress. In one final additional question, 97% of NDs reported 'no change or good effect' on the marriage, similar to 91% for SDs (P = 0.46). This is the first study to evaluate the effect of kidney donation on the state of marriage when the spouse is not the recipient. It appears that marriage is not impacted negatively when kidney donation occurs to someone other than the spouse.

Donors in chains: psychosocial outcomes of kidney donors in paired exchange.

BACKGROUND: Kidney paired donation chains are initiated by nondirected donors and propagated by donors within the chain of transplants, or chain donors. OBJECTIVE: To compare psychosocial and functional outcomes, and to test coercion, of chain donors in paired exchange versus traditional directed donors who have an established relationship with the recipient. METHODS: Thirty chain donors from a transplant center who were part of the National Kidney Registry paired exchange program were compared with 34 traditional donors who donated around the same time. Participants completed online surveys: the postdonation section of the Living Donor Expectancies Questionnaire was used to assess psychosocial and functional outcomes 1 to 6 years after donation. A survey to assess coercion was used as well. RESULTS: Chain donors and traditional donors were similar in terms of sex, race, age, and time after donation. The 2 groups had similar altruistic motives in donating their kidney, and both types of donors mentioned psychological benefits. No differences were found on questions regarding psychosocial outcomes save for the "quid pro quo scale" (P= .01), which suggested that the traditional donors felt more that the recipients are indebted to them. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in the coercion measure. Pressure to donate and stress of donation were not greater in chain donors than traditional donors (P= .60). CONCLUSION: Kidney donors in kidney paired donation chains do as well as traditional donors psychosocially without any increased tendency toward experiencing coercion.