CONTEXT: Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. METHODS: Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation). RESULTS: Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.
CONTEXT: Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. METHODS: Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation). RESULTS: Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.
Authors: Marc Walter; Ekkehard Bronner; Thomas Steinmüller; Burghard F Klapp; Gerhard Danzer Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: J F Trotter; M Talamantes; M McClure; M Wachs; T Bak; T Trouillot; M Kugelmas; G T Everson; I Kam Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: M Abecassis; M Adams; P Adams; R M Arnold; C R Atkins; M L Barr; W M Bennett; M Bia; D M Briscoe; J Burdick; R J Corry; J Davis; F L Delmonico; R S Gaston; W Harmon; C L Jacobs; J Kahn; A Leichtman; C Miller; D Moss; J M Newmann; L S Rosen; L Siminoff; A Spital; V A Starnes; C Thomas; L S Tyler; L Williams; F H Wright; S Youngner Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-12-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J R Rodrigue; J D Schold; P Morrissey; J Whiting; J Vella; L K Kayler; D Katz; J Jones; B Kaplan; A Fleishman; M Pavlakis; D A Mandelbrot Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Cheryl L Jacobs; Cynthia R Gross; Emily E Messersmith; Barry A Hong; Brenda W Gillespie; Peg Hill-Callahan; Sandra J Taler; Sheila G Jowsey; Tim J Beebe; Arthur J Matas; Jonah Odim; Hassan N Ibrahim Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Mary Amanda Dew; Andrea F DiMartini; Daniela P Ladner; Mary Ann Simpson; Elizabeth A Pomfret; Brenda W Gillespie; Robert M Merion; Jarcy Zee; Abigail R Smith; Susan Holtzman; Averell H Sherker; Robert Weinrieb; Robert A Fisher; Jean C Emond; Chris E Freise; James R Burton; Zeeshan Butt Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Galen E Switzer; Jessica G Bruce; Larissa Myaskovsky; Andrea DiMartini; Diana Shellmer; Dennis L Confer; Linda K Abress; Roberta J King; Allyson G Harnaha; Sibylle Ohngemach; Mary Amanda Dew Journal: Blood Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: M A Dew; A F DiMartini; A J DeVito Dabbs; A Zuckoff; H P Tan; M L McNulty; G E Switzer; K R Fox; J B Greenhouse; A Humar Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Robert S Brown; Abigail R Smith; Mary Amanda Dew; Brenda W Gillespie; Peg Hill-Callahan; Daniela P Ladner Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: M Susan Mandell; Abigail R Smith; Mary Amanda Dew; Debra B Gordon; Susan Holtzman; Terese Howell; Andrea F DiMartini; Zeeshan Butt; Mary Ann Simpson; Daniela P Ladner; Christopher E Freise; Stuart A McCluskey; Robert A Fisher; James V Guarrera; Kim M Olthoff; Elizabeth A Pomfret Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.939