Opinions of dutch liver transplant recipients on anonymity of organ donation and direct contact with the donors family

Transplantation

Volumn 99, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 879-884

  Annema, Coby ^a   Op Den Dries, Sanna ^a   Van Den Berg, Aad P ^a   Ranchor, Adelita V ^a   Porte, Robert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALCOHOL LIVER CIRRHOSIS; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DONOR SELECTION; EMOTIONALITY; FEMALE; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; HUMAN TISSUE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; ORGAN DONOR; PATIENT ATTITUDE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; ACCESS TO INFORMATION; AGE; AGED; CONFIDENTIALITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DONOR; EMOTION; FAMILY; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; CONFIDENTIALITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EMOTIONS; FAMILY; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX FACTORS; TISSUE DONORS; TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS;

EID: 84930177351     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000394     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Corr CA, Coolican MB, Nile LG, et al. What is the rationale for or against contacts between donor families and transplant recipients? Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 1994;6:625.
2. Dobbels F, Van Gelder F, Remans K, et al. Should the law on anonymity of organ donation be changed? The perception of liver transplant recipients. Clin Transplant. 2009;23:375.
3. Mamode N, Lennerling A, Citterio F, et al. Anonymity and live-donor transplantation: an ELPAT view. Transplantation. 2013;95:536.
4. Azuri P, Tabak N, Kreitler S. Contact between deceased donors' families and organ recipients. Prog Transplant. 2013;23:342.
5. Albert P. Direct contact between donor families and recipients: crisis or consolation? J Transpl Coord. 1998;8:139.
6. Lewino D, Stocks L, Cole G. Interaction of organ donor families and recipients. J Transpl Coord. 1996;6:191.
7. Clayville L. When donor families and organ recipients meet. J Transpl Coord. 1999;9:81.
8. Politoski G, Coolican M, Casey K. Perspectives on communication issues among transplant and procurement professionals, transplant recipients, and donor families. J Transpl Coord. 1996;6:78.
9. Ono VC, Ramalho FS, Rocha JN, et al. Communication between organ donor families and recipients: a definitely controversial subject. Transplant Proc. 2008;40:663.
10. Bakker P, Evers S, Hovens N, et al. The Rhineland model as source of inspiration [in Dutch]. Holland Management Review. 2005;103:72.
11. Shaw R. Thanking and reciprocating under the New Zealand organ donation system. Health (London). 2012;16:298.
12. Schweda M, Wöhlke S, Schicktanz S. Understanding public skepticism toward organ donation and its commercialization: the important role of reciprocity. Transplant Proc. 2009;41:2509.
13. Ziegelmann JP, Griva K, Hankins M, et al. The Transplant Effects Questionnaire (TxEQ): the development of a questionnaire for assessing the multidimensional outcome of organ transplantation-example of end stage renal disease (ESRD). Br J Health Psychol. 2002;7:393.
14. Goetzmann L, Sarac N, Ambuhl P, et al. Psychological response and quality of life after transplantation: a comparison between heart, lung, liver and kidney recipients. Swiss Med Wkly. 2008;138:477.
15. Annema C, Roodbol PF, Stewart RE, et al. Validation of the Dutch version of the transplant effects questionnaire in liver transplant recipients. Res Nurs Health. 2013;36:203.
16. Peeters FPML, Ponds RWHM, et al. Affect and self-report of depression and anxiety [in Dutch]. Tijdschr Psychiatr. 1996;38:240.