OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine public attitudes towards living donation compared with cadaveric donation, and to analyse psycho-social factors that may influence this attitude. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An opinion poll was used to study a random sample in two geographical areas (urban and rural). Assessment was made of attitudes towards donation of one's own organs as a living donor to an unknown person, as a living donor to a relative and/or close acquaintance and, as a cadaveric donor, and of the different psycho-social variables that may influence this attitude. RESULTS: In the urban setting, 60% had a favourable response towards cadaveric donation; 29% were in favour of living kidney donation to an unknown person, a percentage which increased to 89% for donation to a relative or a friend. These rates were lower for liver (21 and 74%, respectively). When asked if they would accept an organ donated by a relative or a friend, 67% would accept a kidney and 60% a liver. Attitude towards living donation to an unknown person is more positive among those in favour of cadaveric donation and those who have had previous experience of donation. With respect to level of education, university students are more undecided about living donation to an unknown person than the other groups. In terms of attitude towards donation to relatives and/or friends, there is also the influence of social factors (sex, marital status). However, if the living donation is intended for oneself, there is no variable with which to associate this attitude. In the rural setting, 56% of the respondents refused to complete the survey due to fear of living donation. No statistical study was conducted due to the bias of the rural sample. CONCLUSIONS: There is great fear and ignorance of living donation among the rural population, and uncertainties in the urban population, although attitudes are more positive towards living donation to relatives and/or friends than towards cadaveric donation. These positive attitudes towards living donation are very strongly related to attitudes towards cadaveric donation, previous experience of donation and level of education.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine public attitudes towards living donation compared with cadaveric donation, and to analyse psycho-social factors that may influence this attitude. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An opinion poll was used to study a random sample in two geographical areas (urban and rural). Assessment was made of attitudes towards donation of one's own organs as a living donor to an unknown person, as a living donor to a relative and/or close acquaintance and, as a cadaveric donor, and of the different psycho-social variables that may influence this attitude. RESULTS: In the urban setting, 60% had a favourable response towards cadaveric donation; 29% were in favour of living kidney donation to an unknown person, a percentage which increased to 89% for donation to a relative or a friend. These rates were lower for liver (21 and 74%, respectively). When asked if they would accept an organ donated by a relative or a friend, 67% would accept a kidney and 60% a liver. Attitude towards living donation to an unknown person is more positive among those in favour of cadaveric donation and those who have had previous experience of donation. With respect to level of education, university students are more undecided about living donation to an unknown person than the other groups. In terms of attitude towards donation to relatives and/or friends, there is also the influence of social factors (sex, marital status). However, if the living donation is intended for oneself, there is no variable with which to associate this attitude. In the rural setting, 56% of the respondents refused to complete the survey due to fear of living donation. No statistical study was conducted due to the bias of the rural sample. CONCLUSIONS: There is great fear and ignorance of living donation among the rural population, and uncertainties in the urban population, although attitudes are more positive towards living donation to relatives and/or friends than towards cadaveric donation. These positive attitudes towards living donation are very strongly related to attitudes towards cadaveric donation, previous experience of donation and level of education.
Authors: Antonio Ríos; Ana Isabel López-Navas; Ana Isabel López-López; Francisco Javier Gómez; Jorge Iriarte; Rafael Herruzo; Gerardo Blanco; Francisco Javier Llorca; Angel Asunsolo; Pilar Sánchez-Gallegos; Pedro Ramón Gutiérrez; Ana Fernández; María Teresa de Jesús; Laura Martínez-Alarcón; Alberto Lana; Lorena Fuentes; Juan Ramón Hernández; Julio Virseda; José Yelamos; José Antonio Bondía; Antonio Miguel Hernández; Marco Antonio Ayala; Pablo Ramírez; Pascual Parrilla Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: A Ríos; A López-Navas; A López-López; F J Gómez; J Iriarte; R Herruzo; G Blanco; F J Llorca; A Asunsolo; P Sánchez; P R Gutiérrez; A Fernández; M T de Jesús; L Martínez-Alarcón; M Del Olivo; L Fuentes; J R Hernández; J Virseda; J Yelamos; J A Bondía; A Hernández; M A Ayala; P Ramírez; P Parrilla Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marina Iniesta-Sepúlveda; Ana I López-Navas; Pedro R Gutiérrez; Pablo Ramírez; Antonio Ríos Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Emmanouil K Symvoulakis; Ioannis D Komninos; Nikos Antonakis; Myfanwy Morgan; Athanasios Alegakis; Emmanouil Tsafantakis; Marios Chatziarsenis; Anastas Philalithis; Roger Jones Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 3.295