Managing the Psychosocial and Financial Consequences of Living Donation

Current Transplantation Reports

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 24-34

  Dew, Mary Amanda ^a   Myaskovsky, Larissa ^a   Steel, Jennifer L ^a   DiMartini, Andrea F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Financial outcomes; Health related quality of life; Kidney donors; Liver donors; Living donors; Psychosocial outcomes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921558306     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21963029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40472-013-0003-4     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Dew MA, Jacobs C, Jowsey SG, et al. Guidelines for the psychosocial evaluation of living unrelated kidney donors in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:1047–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01751.x
2. Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up Conference Writing Group, Leichtman A, Abecassis M, Barr M, et al. Living kidney donor follow-up: state-of-the-art and future directions, conference summary and recommendations. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:2561–8. This report summarizes deliberations of a consensus conference that reviewed limitations of existing data on outcomes in living kidney donors; assessed the need for donor follow-up; identified potential infrastructure needs and costs for follow-up; and explored practical options for funding of follow-up data collection in the U.S. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03816.x
3. Melcher ML, Blosser CD, Baxter-Lowe LA, et al. Dynamic challenges inhibiting optimal adoption of kidney paired donation: findings of a consensus conference. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:851–60. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12140
4. American Society of Transplant Surgeons: Medical evaluation, informed consent, and follow-up of the living liver donor: a consensus document from the AST/ASTS/NATCO/UNOS Joint Societies Work Group. Available at http://asts.org/docs/default-source/optn-unos/pubcmts_jswgl_recommendations_medeval_informedconsent_followup_living_liver_donor.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2013.
5. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network: Policies of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Section 12: living donation. 2013. http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_172.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2013.
6. McDowell I. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195165678.001.0001
7. Clemens KK, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Parikh CR, et al. Psychosocial health of living kidney donors: a systematic review. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:2965–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01567.x
8. Dew MA, Zuckoff A, DiMartini AF, et al. Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing. Prog Transplant. 2012;22(3):280–92. DOI: 10.7182/pit2012890
9. Dew MA, Switzer GE, DiMartini AF, et al. In: Living Donor Organ Transplantation, Tan HP, Marcos A, Shapiro R, editors. Psychosocial aspects of living organ donation. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2007. p. 7–26.
10. Parikh ND, Ladner D, Abecassis M, Butt Z. Quality of life for donors after living donor liver transplantation: a review of the literature. Liver Transpl. 2010;16:1352–8. DOI: 10.1002/lt.22181
11. Dew MA, Jacobs CL. Psychosocial and socioeconomic issues facing the living kidney donor. Adv Chron Kidney Dis. 2012;19(4):237–43. This report provides summarizes workgroup recommendations from the 2010 Conference on Living Kidney Donor Follow-up [3] on psychosocial and socioeconomic issues facing living kidney donors. The workgroup commented on the state of the evidence, gaps in information on these issues, and important research questions for the future. DOI: 10.1053/j.ackd.2012.04.006
12. Gross CR, Messersmith EE, Hong BA, et al.: Health-related quality of life in kidney donors from the last five decades: results from the RELIVE study. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(11):2924–34. This report describes long-term follow-up HRQOL data in one of the largest cohort of living kidney donors assessed to date. Donors were drawn from multiple U.S. centers. Multiple predictors and correlates of HRQOL were examined. See further description of findings in Table 1.
13. Takada Y, Suzukamo Y, Oike F, et al. Long-term quality of life of donors after living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:1343–52. This report describes long-term follow-up HRQOL data in the largest cohort of living liver donors assessed to date. The study is noteworthy for a high response rate. Multiple predictors and correlates of HRQOL were examined. See further description of findings in Table 1. DOI: 10.1002/lt.23509
14. De Groot IB, Stiggelbout AM, van der Boog PJM, et al. Reduced quality of life in living kidney donors: association with fatigue, societal participation and pre-donation variables. Transpl Int. 2012;25:967–75. This report describes long-term follow-up HRQOL data in a large series of living kidney donors from one center. The study is noteworthy for a high response rate, enhancing potential generalizability. See further description of findings in Table 1. DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01524.x
15. Clemens K, Boudville N, Dew MA, et al. The long-term quality of life of living kidney donors: a multicenter cohort study. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:463–9. The authors conducted a long-term follow-up study of donors from multiple sites in multiple countries. They considered HRQOL as well as some other areas of outcomes (e.g., employment). It is also one of the few studies to include a comparison group: the authors constructed a group of non-donors by asking donors to nominate other individuals. Many comparison group members had been evaluated as potential donors themselves but were unable to donate due to logistical or other nonmedical reasons. See further description of findings in Table 1. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03424.x
16. Mjøen G, Stavem K, Westlie L, et al. Quality of life in kidney donors. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:1315–9. This study examined long-term HRQOL outcomes, and it is novel in including individuals from a national registry (in Norway). They also had a high response rate, enhancing potential generalizability. See further description of findings in Table 1. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03517.x
17. Davis CL, Cooper M. The state of U.S. living kidney donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(10):1873–80. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01510210
18. Lentine K, Schnitzler MA, Xiao H, et al. Depression diagnoses after living kidney donation: linking U.S. registry data and administrative claims. Transplantation. 2012;94(1):77–83. The authors integrated data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network with administrative data from a U.S. private health insurer in order to examine rates and correlates of depression diagnoses in kidney donors. The cohort is the largest examined to date in terms of mental health outcomes after donation. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318253f1bc
19. Tong A, Chapman JR, Wong G, et al. The motivations and experiences of living kidney donors: a thematic synthesis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):15–26. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.11.043
20. Tong A, Chapman JR, Wong G, et al. The experiences of commercial kidney donors: thematic synthesis of qualitative research. Transpl Int. 2012;25:1138–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01534.x
21. Moniruzzaman M. “Living cadavers” in Bangladesh: bioviolence in the human organ bazaar. Med Anthropol Q. 2012;26(1):69–91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1387.2011.01197.x
22. Steering Committee of the Istanbul Summit. Organ trafficking and transplant tourism and commercialism: the Declaration of Istanbul. Lancet. 2008;372:5–6. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60967-8
23. Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Kaplan B, Howard RJ. Patients’ willingness to talk to others about living kidney donation. Prog Transplant. 2008;18:25–31.
24. NATCO, The Transplant Professional Organization: Living donor health care coverage, insurability and follow-up: position statement, 2006. Available at http://www.natco1.org/public_policy/documents/LivingDonorInsurability.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2012.
25. Casagrande LH, Collins S, Warren AT, Ommen ES. Lack of health insurance in living kidney donors. Clin Transpl. 2012;26(2):E101–4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01558.x
26. Gibney EM, Doshi MD, Hartmann EL, et al. Health insurance status of US living kidney donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5:912–6. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.07121009
27. Clarke KS, Klarenbach S, Vlaicu S, et al. The direct and indirect economic costs incurred by living kidney donors: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21:1952–60. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfl069
28. Rodrigue JR, Schutzer ME, Paek M, Morrissey P. Altruistic kidney donation to a stranger: psychosocial and functional outcomes at two US transplant centers. Transplantation. 2011;91:772–8. This study directly compares outcomes in anonymous donors to donors who had longstanding biologic or emotional relationships with their recipients. Strengths are that the donors were drawn from two centers and a wide range of HRQOL and financial outcomes were examined.
29. Yang RC, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Klarenbach S, et al. Insurability of living organ donors: a systematic review. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:1542–51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01793.x
30. Sotiropoulos GC, Radtke A, Molmenti EP, et al. Long-term follow-up after right hepatectomy for adult living donation and attitudes toward the procedure. Ann Surg. 2011;254(5):694–701. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823594ae
31. Gill JS, Gill J, Barnieh L, et al. Income of living kidney donors and the income difference between living kidney donors and their recipients in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:3111–8. The authors examine a large national cohort of kidney recipients and their donors in order to evaluate household income levels, based on census tract data. Comparisons of recipients’ and donors’ median income levels are informative for evaluating the potential for recipients to cover donor expenses associated with donation and thereby for understanding the likely degree of financial burdens assumed by donors. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04211.x
32. Gaston RS, Danovitch GM, Epstein RA, et al. Limiting financial disincentives in live organ donation: a rational solution to the kidney shortage. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:2548–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01492.x
33. McGrath P, Holewa H. “It’s a regional thing”: financial impact of renal transplantation on live donors. Rural and Remote Health (Online) 2012, 12:2144. Available at: http://www.rrh.org.au. Accessed October 9, 2013.
34. Mandelbrot DA, Pavlakis M, Karp SJ, et al. Practices and barriers in long-term living kidney donor follow-up: a survey of U.S. transplant centers. Transplantation. 2009;88(7):855–60. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181b6dfb9
35. Waterman AD, Dew MA, Davis CL, et al. Living donor follow-up attitudes and practices in U.S. kidney and liver donor programs. Transplantation. 2013;95(6):883–8. The authors report on a national survey of living donor programs in which respondents reported on factors that make donor follow-up important as well as render it difficult to complete. The study advances over a previous survey by Mandelbrot et al. [33] in including liver donor programs. The study achieved a relatively high response rate. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31828279fd
36. Purnell TS, Hall YN, Boulware LE. Understanding and overcoming barriers to living kidney donation among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Adv Chron Kidney Dis. 2012;19(4):244–51.
37. Friedman AL, Friedman EA. A step toward solving the long-term care dilemma for living kidney donors. Transplantation. 2012;94(10):988–9. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318271921f
38. Gore JL, Singer JS, Brown AF, Danovitch GM. The socioeconomic status of donors and recipients of living unrelated renal transplants in the United States. J Urol. 2012;187:1760–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.112
39. Massey EK, Kranenburg LW, Zuidema WC, et al. Encouraging psychological outcomes after altruistic donation to a stranger. Am J Transplant. 2010;10:1445–52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03115.x
40. Timmerman L, Zuidema WC, Erdman RAM, et al. Psychologic functioning of unspecified anonymous living kidney donors before and after donation. Transplantation. 2013;95(11):1369–74. This is the largest study to date that has examined anonymous kidney donors. A key strength is its prospective design, allowing for changes to be examined across the course of the donation process. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31828eaf81
41. Kranenburg L, Zuidema W, Vanderkroft P, et al. The implementation of a kidney exchange program does not induce a need for additional psychosocial support. Transpl Int. 2007;20:432–9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2007.00461.x
42. Manyalich M, Menjívar L, Yucetin L, et al. Living donor psychosocial assessment/follow-up practices in the partners’ countries of the ELIPSY Project. Transplant Proc. 2012;44:2246–9.
43. Manyalich M, Ricart A, Martinez I, et al. EULID project: European living donation and public health. Transplant Proc. 2009;41(6):2021–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.05.021
44. Ommen ES, LaPointe Rudow D, Medapilli RK, et al. When good intentions are not enough: obtaining follow-up data in living kidney donors. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:2575–81. The authors performed an analysis of factors associated with missing data on the forms that living donor programs are required to submit to document follow-up of living donors. An understanding of which donors are likely to have missing data is critical for evaluating bias in the follow-up data and for targeting donor subgroups for which additional efforts at follow-up are needed. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03815.x
45. Dew MA, Olenick D, Davis CL, et al. Successful follow-up of living organ donors: strategies to make it happen. Prog Transplant. 2011;21(2):94–6.
46. Tong A, Chapman JR, Wong G, et al. Screening and follow-up of living kidney donors: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Transplantation. 2011;92(9):962–72.
47. Doshi MD, Goggins MO, Li L, Garg AX. Medical outcomes in African American live kidney donors: a matched cohort study. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(1):111–8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04303.x
48. Myaskovsky L, Doebler DA, Posluszny DM, et al. Rates and correlates of health maintenance behaviors after living kidney donation. Prog Transplant. 2012;22(2):147–54. DOI: 10.7182/pit2012287
49. Thomas SM, Lentine KL, Garg AX. Preparing potential living kidney donors for what they will experience emotionally. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):1–2. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.04.004
50. Gordon EJ. Informed consent for living donation: a review of key empirical studies, ethical challenges and future research. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:2273–80. The author provides a comprehensive review of the literature and suggests specific areas for which research is most needed. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04102.x
51. Steel J, Dunlavy A, Friday M, et al. A national survey of independent living donor advocates: the need for practice guidelines. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:2141–9. The authors conducted a survey to delineate the practices of independent living donor advocates in the United States with an eye toward the development of recommendations for general practice. Those recommendations are described in Steel et al. [49]. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04062.x
52. Steel JL, Dunlavy A, Friday M, et al. The development of practice guidelines for independent living donor advocates. Clin Transpl. 2013;27:178–84. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12112
53. Valapour M, Kahn JP, Bailey RF, Matas AJ. Assessing elements of informed consent among living donors. Clin Transpl. 2011;25:185–90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2010.01374.x
54. Dew MA, DiMartini AF, DeVito Dabbs AJ, et al. Preventive intervention for living donor psychosocial outcomes: feasibility and efficacy in a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:2672–84. There are no evidence-based interventions to prevent adverse psychosocial consequences after living kidney or liver donation. The authors conducted a single-site randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention offered before donation. Donors were then followed to examine psychosocial outcomes after donation. Results indicated that the intervention was feasible and efficacious, and suggested that a large-scale trial of the intervention is warranted. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12393
55. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford; 2012.
56. DiMartini A, Cruz Jr R, Dew MA, et al. Motives and decision making of potential living liver donors: comparisons between gender, relationships and ambivalence. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(1):136–51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03805.x
57. Hoeyer K, Schicktanz S, Deleuran I. Public attitudes to financial incentive models for organs: a literature review suggests that it is time to shift the focus from “financial incentives” to “reciprocity. Transpl Int. 2013;26:350–7. DOI: 10.1111/tri.12060
58. Boulware LE, Troll MU, Plantinga LC, Powe NR. The association of state and national legislation with living kidney donation rates in the United States: a national study. Am J Transplant. 2008;8(7):1451–70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02266.x
59. Lavee J, Ashkenazi T, Stoler A, et al. Preliminary marked increase in the national organ donation rate in Israel following implementation of a new organ transplantation law. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:780–5. The authors analyzed data from before to after enactment of a new law in Israel and found that the rate of living donation showed a dramatic increase. The law removed many financial disincentives to living donation. The paper discusses effects of the law on deceased donation as well. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12001