Decision making around living and deceased donor kidney transplantation: a qualitative study exploring the importance of expected relationship changes

BMC Nephrology

Perla J Marang-van de Mheen³  Andrzej G Baranski¹  Anne M Stiggelbout³  Paul J M van der Boog⁴  Sandra van Dijk⁵  Karen Schipper²  Ingrid B de Groot³ 

[1]Department of Transplantation Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

[2]Department of Medical Humanities, EMGO institute, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

[3]Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

[4]Department of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

[5]Department of Medical Psychology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

关键词: Kidney transplantation;    Expectations;    Donor-recipient relationship;    Decision making;   

Others  :  1083108
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2369-13-103

 received in 2011-11-01, accepted in 2012-08-27,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Limited data exist on the impact of living kidney donation on the donor-recipient relationship. Purpose of this study was to explore motivations to donate or accept a (living donor) kidney, whether expected relationship changes influence decision making and whether relationship changes are actually experienced.

Methods

We conducted 6 focus groups in 47 of 114 invited individuals (41%), asking retrospectively about motivations and decision making around transplantation. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the focus group transcripts.

Results

Most deceased donor kidney recipients had a potential living donor available which they refused or did not want. They mostly waited for a deceased donor because of concern for the donor’s health (75%). They more often expected negative relationship changes than living donor kidney recipients (75% vs. 27%, p = 0.01) who also expected positive changes. Living donor kidney recipients mostly accepted the kidney to improve their own quality of life (47%). Donors mostly donated a kidney because transplantation would make the recipient less dependent (25%). After transplantation both positive and negative relationship changes are experienced.

Conclusion

Expected relationship changes and concerns about the donor’s health lead some kidney patients to wait for a deceased donor, despite having a potential living donor available. Further research is needed to assess whether this concerns a selected group.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 de Groot et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1 .

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Johnson EM, Anderson JK, Jacobs C, Suh G, Humar A, Suhr BD, Kerr SR, Matas AJ: Long-term follow-up of living kidney donors: quality of life after donation. Transplantation 1999, 67:717-721.
• [2]Ku JH: Health-related quality of life of living kidney donors: review of the short form 36-health questionnaire survey. Transpl Int 2005, 18:1309-1317.
• [3]Kok NFM: Live kidney donation. A plea for the laparoscopic approach (PhD Thesis). Rotterdam: Optima Grafische Communicatie; 2007.
• [4]Lumsdaine JA, Wray A, Power MJ, Jamiesion NV, Akyol M, Andrew Bradley J, Forsythe JL, Wigmore SJ: Higher quality of life in living donor kidney transplantation: prospective cohort study. Transpl Int 2005, 18:975-980.
• [5]Roodnat JI, van Riemsdijk IC, Mulder PGH, Doxiadis I, Claas FH, IJzermans JN, van Gelder T, Weimar W: The superior results of living-donor renal transplantation are not completely caused by selection or short cold ischemia time: a single-center multivariate analysis. Transplantation 2003, 75:2014-2018.
• [6]Sajjad I, Baines LS, Salifu M, Jindal RM: The dynamics of recipient-donor relationships in living kidney transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 2007, 50:834-854.
• [7]Clemens KK, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Parikh CR, Yang RC, Karley ML, Boudville N, Ramesh Prasad GV, Garg AX, Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: Psychosocial health of living kidney donors: a systematic review. Am J Transplant 2006, 6:2965-2977.
• [8]Ummel D, Achille M, Mekkelholt J: Donors and recipients of living kidney donation: a qualitative metasummary of their experiences. J Transplant 2011.
• [9]Franklin P, Crombie A, Boudville N: Live related renal transplantation: psychological, social and cultural issues. Transplantation 2003, 76:1247-1252.
• [10]Kranenburg L, Zuidema W, Weiman W, IJzermans J, Passchier J, Hilhorst M, Busschbach J: Postmortal or living related donor: preferences of kidney patients. Transplant Int 2005, 19:519-523.
• [11]Krueger RA, Casey MA: Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000.
• [12]Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000, 320:50-52.
• [13]Morgan D, Krueger R, King JA: The focus group guidebooks (volume 1–6). Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 1998.
• [14]Hardeveld E, Tong A: Psychosocial care of living kidney donors. Nephrology 2010, 15:S80-S87.
• [15]Seale C, Silverman D: Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. Eur J Public Health 1997, 7:379-84.
• [16]van der Meer V, van Stel HF, Detmar SB, Otten W, Sterk PJ, Sont JK: Internet-based self-management offers an opportunity to achieve better asthma control in adolescents. Chest 2007, 132:112-9.
• [17]De Vries H, Mudde A: Predicting stage transitions for smoking cessation applying the Attitude-Social Influence-Efficacy model. Psych Health 1998, 13:273-282.
• [18]De Vries H, Dijkstra M, Kuhlman P: Self-efficacy: the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioral intentions. Health Educ Res 1988, 3:273-283.
• [19]De Vries H, Mudde AN, Leijs I, CHarlton A, Vartiainen E, Buijs G, Clemente MP, Storm H, Gonzalez N, Nebot M, Prins T, Kremers S: The European smoking prevention framework approach (ESA): an example of integral prevention. Health Educ Res 2003, 18:611-626.
• [20]Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001, 358:483-488.
• [21]Pradel FG, Mullins CD, Bartlett ST: Exploring donors’ and recipients’ attitudes about living donor kidney transplantation. Prog Transplant 2003, 13:203-10.
• [22]Binet I, Bock AH, Vogelbach P, Gasser T, Kiss A, Brunner F, Thiel G: Outcome in emotionally related living kidney donor transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997, 12:1940-48.
• [23]Waterman AD, Stanley SL, Covelli T, Hazel E, Hong BA, Brennan DC: Living donation decision making: recipients’ concern and educational needs. Prog Transplant 2006, 16:17-23.
• [24]Andersen MH, Bruserud F, Mathisen L, Wahl AK, Hanestad BR, Fosse E: Follow-up interviews of 12 living kidney donors one yr after open donor nephrectomy. Clin Transplant 2007, 21:702-709.
• [25]Schover LR, Streem SB, Boparai N, Duriak K, Novick AC: The psychosocial impact of donating a kidney: long-term follow-up from a urology based center. J Urol 1997, 157:1596-1601.
• [26]Duque JL, Loughlin KR, Kumar S: Morbidity of flank incision for renal donors. Urology 1999, 54:796-801.
• [27]Schostak M, Wloch H, Muller M, Schrader M, Christoph F, Offermann G, Miller K: Living donor nephrectomy in an open technique; a long-term analysis of donor outcome. Transplant Proc 2003, 35:2096-2098.
• [28]Giessing M, Reuter S, Schonberger B, Deger S, Tuerk I, Hirte I, Budde K, Fritsche L, Morgera S, Neumayer HH, Loening SA: Quality of life of living kidney donors in Germany: a survey with the Validated Short Form-36 and Giessen Subjective Complaints List-24 questionnaires. Transplantation 2004, 78:864-872.
• [29]Dahm F, Weber M, Muller B, Pradel FG, Laube GF, Neuhaus T, Cao C, Wüthrich RP, Thiel GT, Clavien PA: Open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in Switzerland: a retrospective assessment of clinical outcomes and the motivation to donate. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006, 21:2563-2568.
• [30]Minz M, Udgiri N, Sharma A, Heer MK, Kashyap R, Nehra R, Sakhuja V: Prospective psychosocial evaluation of related kidney donors: Indian perspective. Transplant Proc 2005, 37:2001-2003.
• [31]Troppmann C, Johnston WK 3rd, Pierce JL, McVicar JP, Perez RV: Impact of laparoscopic nephrectomy on donor preoperative decision-making and postoperative quality of life and psychosocial outcomes. Pediatr Nephro 2006, 21:1052-1054.
• [32]Neuhaus TJ, Wartmann M, Weber M, Landolt MA, Laube GF, Kamper MJ: Psychosocial impact of living-related kidney transplantation on donors and partners. Pediatr Nephrol 2005, 20:205-209.
• [33]Reimer J, Rensing A, Haasen C, Philipp T, Pietruck F, Franke GH: The impact of living-related kidney transplantation on the donor’s life. Transplantation 2006, 81:1268-73.
• [34]Valapour M, Kahn JP, Bailey RF, Matas AJ: Assessing elements of informed consent among living donors. Clin Transplant 2011, 25:185-190.
• [35]Martínez-Alarcón L, Ríos A, Conesa C, Ramírez P: Response to: postmortal or living related donor: preferences of kidney patients. Transplant Int 2006, 19:598-9.
• [36]Kranenburg L, Zuidema W, Weimar W, IJzermans J, Passchier J, Hilhorst M, Busschbach J: Postmortal or living related donor: preferences of kidney patients. Authors’ reply. Transplant Int 2006, 19:600.