BACKGROUND: Recruitment of living donors represents a medical and moral responsibility. Their motives are often complex. Categories of motives and factors causing concern were identified from a previous in-depth interview study and from the literature. The aim of the present study was to evaluate these motives. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 207 potential kidney donors undergoing evaluation for donation in Norway and Sweden. They were asked to mark on a visual analogue scale, 0-10, the importance given to each of nine motives and five factors of concern. Questions were also asked about who took the initiative and the source of information. RESULTS: The response rate was 74%; 154 questionnaires were returned. The strongest motives to become a donor were a wish to help (median 9.3), self-benefit from the recipient's improved health (median 9.2) and identification with the recipient (median 9.1). In contrast, a sense of guilt regarding past relationships (median 0.9), pressure from others (median 0.8), a religious motive (median 0.8) and increased self-esteem (median 0.7) were rare or weak incentives for donation. There were large individual variations in the mix, particularly regarding moral duty (5.6, range 0.1-10.0). Most potential donors (64%) had taken the initiative for the assessment themselves, but in 22% it was the recipient's physician. Physicians were the dominant source of information. The potential donors expressed much more concern for the recipient than for themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Living kidney donor assessment includes an exploration of the individuals' mixed feelings. An analysis of the motive enables individualized treatment and support for non-donors.
BACKGROUND: Recruitment of living donors represents a medical and moral responsibility. Their motives are often complex. Categories of motives and factors causing concern were identified from a previous in-depth interview study and from the literature. The aim of the present study was to evaluate these motives. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 207 potential kidney donors undergoing evaluation for donation in Norway and Sweden. They were asked to mark on a visual analogue scale, 0-10, the importance given to each of nine motives and five factors of concern. Questions were also asked about who took the initiative and the source of information. RESULTS: The response rate was 74%; 154 questionnaires were returned. The strongest motives to become a donor were a wish to help (median 9.3), self-benefit from the recipient's improved health (median 9.2) and identification with the recipient (median 9.1). In contrast, a sense of guilt regarding past relationships (median 0.9), pressure from others (median 0.8), a religious motive (median 0.8) and increased self-esteem (median 0.7) were rare or weak incentives for donation. There were large individual variations in the mix, particularly regarding moral duty (5.6, range 0.1-10.0). Most potential donors (64%) had taken the initiative for the assessment themselves, but in 22% it was the recipient's physician. Physicians were the dominant source of information. The potential donors expressed much more concern for the recipient than for themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Living kidney donor assessment includes an exploration of the individuals' mixed feelings. An analysis of the motive enables individualized treatment and support for non-donors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health
Authors: Francis L Weng; Peter P Reese; Amy D Waterman; Angelo G Soto; Kitaw Demissie; Shamkant Mulgaonkar Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Peter P Reese; Judy A Shea; Jeffrey S Berns; Maureen K Simon; Marshall M Joffe; Roy D Bloom; Harold I Feldman Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kristin M Brethel-Haurwitz; Katherine O'Connell; Elise M Cardinale; Maria Stoianova; Sarah A Stoycos; Leah M Lozier; John W VanMeter; Abigail A Marsh Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Lotte Timmerman; Sohal Y Ismail; Annemarie E Luchtenburg; Willij C Zuidema; Jan N M IJzermans; Jan J V Busschbach; Willem Weimar; Emma K Massey Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2015-10
Authors: Käthe B Meyer; Ida Torunn Bjørk; Astrid Klopstad Wahl; Annette Lennerling; Marit Helen Andersen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 2.692