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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Predicting mental health after living kidney donation: The importance of psychological factors.

OBJECTIVES: Living donor kidney transplantation offers advantages to the patient, however involves risks to the donor. To optimize donors' mental health after donation, we studied the influence of psychological factors on this outcome. Potential predictors were based on models of Lazarus () and Ursin and Eriksen () that describe predictors of mental health mediated by stress. DESIGN: Prospective design. METHODS: Living kidney donors (n = 151) were interviewed before donation and completed questionnaires 2.5 months before and 3 and 12 months post-donation. Using multilevel regression models, we examined whether appraisals, expectations, knowledge, social support, coping, life events, and sociodemographic characteristics predicted psychological symptoms and well-being and whether these relationships were mediated by stress. RESULTS: A greater increase in psychological symptoms over time was found among donors without a partner. Younger age, lack of social support, expectations of interpersonal benefit, lower appraisals of manageability, and an avoidant coping style were related to more psychological symptoms at all time points. The latter three were mediated by stress. No religious affiliation, unemployment, history of psychological problems, less social support, expectations of negative health consequences, and less positive appraisals were related to lower well-being at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified indicators of a lower mental health status among living kidney donors. Professionals should examine this profile before donation and the need for extra psychological support in relation to the number and magnitude of the identified indicators. Interventions should be focused on the changeable factors (e.g., expectations), decreasing stress/psychological symptoms, and/or increasing well-being. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Until now, research on psychological outcomes after living kidney donation revealed that mental health remained the same for the majority of living kidney donors, while mental health improved or deteriorated for a minority after donation. In reaction to these findings, many psychosocial screening guidelines have been developed for potential donors; however, the components of these guidelines are based on professional opinions and experience rather than on longitudinal empirical data. There is a lack of research that identifies pre-donation donor characteristics that are related to a lower mental health among donors. Such studies are essential in order to tailor psychosocial support during the donation process. What does this study add? Components that are mostly included in psychosocial screening guidelines for potential living kidney donors are not predictive of deterioration, nor increase, in mental health after donation, except for the lack of a partner. Therefore, there is little evidence on the necessity of rejecting potential donors based on these psychological criteria. The following psychological risk factors are predictive of the absolute level of donors' mental health during the donation process: A history of psychological problems, expectations of interpersonal benefit and negative health outcomes, an avoidant coping style, lack of social support, appraisals of the donation process as an unmanageable and/or negative event, a younger age, no religious affiliation, and unemployment. We argue that potential donors should not be rejected for donation based on these factors, but the indicators should be used to identify donors who might be in need for more psychological support.

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 Relevance of Directive 2010/53/EU for Living Organ Donation Practice: An ELPAT View.

With the recent transposition of Directive 2010/53/EU into the transplant regulation of EU Member States, the time is right to have a closer look at its implications for living organ donation practice. We first discuss the relevance of the Action Plan which forms the basis for the policy of the European Commission in the field of organ donation and transplantation. We then analyze the impact of Directive 2010/53/EU which was adopted to support the implementation of the Priority Actions set out in the Action Plan. We more specifically focus on the obligations of transplant centers engaged in living organ donation and highlight their significance for clinical practice. Finally, we point out some strengths and weaknesses of the Directive in addressing living organ donation.

Dealing With Public Solicitation of Organs From Living Donors--An ELPAT View.

Although transplant professionals have initially been reluctant to perform transplants after public solicitation of organs from living donors, nowadays these transplants are increasingly being performed and reported. After clarifying the existing terminology, we elaborate an operational definition of public solicitation that is consistent with the Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Aspects of Transplantation classification for living organ donation. Our aim is to critically assess this phenomenon, from a legal, moral, and practical perspective, and to offer some recommendations. From a legal point of view, we analyze the current situation in the Europe and the United States. From a moral perspective, we evaluate the various arguments used in the literature, both in favor and against. Finally, we offer a set of recommendations aimed at maximizing the organ donor pool while safeguarding the interests of potential living donors.

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.

Seriously ill patients as living unspecified kidney donors: rationale and justification.

BACKGROUND: Between 2000 and December 2013, 106 live donor nephrectomies from anonymous living-donors were performed at the Erasmus MC Rotterdam; five of the donors (5.4%) had a life-threatening disease. The aim of the present report is to give the rational and justification for this procedure. METHODS: All five donors underwent the national standard living-donor screening procedure. Additionally, motivation to donate and psychologic stability were assessed by a psychologist using in-depth interview techniques and a psychologic complaints questionnaire. Post-donor nephrectomy follow-up consisted of standard questionnaires and clinical check-ups. RESULTS: One patient had cerebral and caudal ependymomas, one had severe and progressive emphysema, two had Huntington's disease and one had a grade 2 oligodendroglioma. The psychologic screening revealed genuine motivation, adequate risk perception, and normal sense of reality. No contraindications for donation were found. The five donor nephrectomies made nine kidney transplantations possible. All donors were satisfied with the donation procedure. Three donors died during follow-up (0.6-4.9 years) as a result of their disease. CONCLUSION: In the absence of apparent additional health risks, medical, and psychologic contraindications, we consider it ethically justified to accept an offer from a cognitively competent patient with a life-threatening disease in view of their self-reported satisfaction during follow-up. Although based on a limited number of patients, we conclude that a stricter psychologic screening for seriously ill donors compared to healthy unspecified anonymous donors to unspecified patients is not necessary.

Coordinating unspecified living kidney donation and transplantation across the blood-type barrier in kidney exchange.

BACKGROUND: This article studies multicenter coordination of unspecified living kidney donation and transplantation across the blood-type barrier in kidney exchange. Important questions are whether such coordination should use domino paired donation or non simultaneous extended altruistic donor chains, what the length of the segments in such chains should be, when they should be terminated, and how much time should be allowed between matching rounds. Furthermore, it is controversial whether the different modalities should be coordinated centrally or locally and independently. METHODS: Kidney exchange policies are simulated using actual data from the Dutch national kidney exchange program. Sensitivity analysis is performed on the composition of the population, the time unspecified and bridge donors wait before donating to the wait list, the time between matching rounds, and donor renege rates. RESULTS: Central coordination of unspecified donation and transplantation across the blood-type barrier can increase transplants by 10% (PG0.001). Especially highly sensitized and blood type O patients benefit. Sufficient time between matching rounds is essential: three-monthly exchanges result in 31% more transplants than weekly exchanges. Benefits of non simultaneous extended altruistic donor chains are limited in case of low numbers of highly sensitized patients and sufficient unspecified donors. Chains are best terminated when no further segment is part of an optimal exchange within 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear synergy in the central coordination of both unspecified donation and transplantation across the blood-type barrier in kidney exchange. The best configuration of a national program depends on the composition of the patient Y donor population.

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.

Modifiable factors in access to living-donor kidney transplantation among diverse populations.

BACKGROUND: We have observed a significant inequality in the number of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKT) performed between patients of non-Western European origin and those of Western European origin. The aim of this study was to investigate modifiable factors that could be used as potential targets for an intervention in an attempt to reduce this inequality. METHODS: A questionnaire on knowledge, risk perception, communication, subjective norm, and willingness to accept LDKT was completed by 160 end-stage renal patients who were referred to the pretransplantation outpatient clinic (participation rate of 92%). The questionnaire was available in nine languages. Multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to explore differences between patients with and without a living donor. RESULTS: There were significantly fewer patients of non-Western descent (11 of 82) that brought a living donor to the outpatient clinic than patients of Western descent (38 of 78). After correcting for the unmodifiable sociodemographic factors non-Western descent, low knowledge, little communication about their kidney disease, and low willingness to communicate with individuals from the social network about LDKT were significantly associated with the absence of a living donor. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge and communication are identified as modifiable factors that are associated with the likelihood of identifying a potential living donor for LDKT. This observation makes knowledge and communication targets for interventions to reduce inequality in access to LDKT.

Psychologic functioning of unspecified anonymous living kidney donors before and after donation.

BACKGROUND: There has been discussion regarding the psychologic functioning of living donors who donate their kidney to an unrelated and unknown patient ("unspecified living donors"). This is the first prospective study to investigate group- and individual-level changes in psychologic functioning among a large group of unspecified donors. METHODS: Forty-nine medically and psychologically screened unspecified living kidney donors completed the Symptom Checklist before and after donation. RESULTS: Group-level analysis showed that overall psychologic symptoms increased after donation (P=0.007); the means remained within the average range of the normal population. Individual-level analysis showed that 33 donors showed no statistically significant change, 3 donors showed a statistically significant decrease, and 13 donors showed a statistically significant increase in psychologic symptoms. Two of the latter donors showed a clinically significant increase. CONCLUSIONS: We found more increases in psychologic symptoms than decreases, particularly if follow-up time was longer. However, for almost all donors, these increases were not clinically significant and the clinically significant changes found are comparable with natural fluctuations in psychologic symptoms in the general population. Possibly, the donors underreported their psychologic symptoms before donation to pass the screening. Due to the low level of predonation symptoms reported, regression to the mean could also explain the results. Although we found that changes were not associated with donation-related factors, it is possible that other donation-related factors or other life events not measured have an influence on psychologic functioning. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate whether the fluctuations are related to the donation process.

Living donor kidney transplantation among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: a model for breaking the hurdles.

OBJECTIVE: Despite living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) being the optimal treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease, we observed a significant inequality in the number of LDKT performed between patients of Dutch versus non-Dutch descent. We conducted a focus group study to explore modifiable hurdles to LDKT. METHODS: Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were conducted among 50 end-stage renal patients. Analyses were conducted according to 'grounded theory' using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: We found nearly all patients to be in favor of LDKT (96%). However, multiple factors played a role in considering LDKT. Four potentially modifiable hurdles were derived: (1) inadequate patient education, (2) impeding cognitions and emotions, (3) restrictive social influences, and (4) suboptimal communication. With regard to solutions, we found that our patients were open to home-based group education on renal replacement therapy options (88% in favor). CONCLUSION: The study highlights the need for sensitivity and awareness of the influence of cultural factors on decision-making when discussing living donation with culturally diverse populations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Since the majority of our patients were open to a tailored group education in their own homes, we see this as an opportunity to address factors that influence equality in access to LDKT.