Hannah Maple1, Joseph Chilcot, Lisa Burnapp, Paul Gibbs, Alastair Santhouse, Sam Norton, John Weinman, Nizam Mamode. 1. 1 Department of Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 2 Health Psychology Section, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 3 NHS Blood and Transplant, Organ Donation and Transplantation Directorate, Stoke Gifford, Bristol, United Kingdom. 4 Queen Alexandra Hospital, Hampshire, United Kingdom. 5 South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, York Clinic, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 6 Address correspondence to: Nizam Mamode, F.R.C.S., Department of Transplantation, 6th Floor Renal Offices, Borough Wing, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donation is becoming increasingly common in the United Kingdom. Questions regarding motivation and characteristics of these donors persist, alongside concerns about regret and long-term psychosocial outcomes. The aims of this study were to compare psychosocial and physical outcomes in unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) versus specified kidney donors (SKDs). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, in which a detailed assessment of psychosocial outcomes was made using validated questionnaires. Additional questions specific to donation were also asked, including questions regarding motivation, regret, and anonymity. RESULTS: One hundred ninety responses were received from 296 participants studied (110 UKDs [74.3%] vs. 80 SKDs [54.1%], P<0.001). Unspecified kidney donors were older (54 years vs. 44 years; P<0.001), predominantly white (99.1% vs. 78.5%; P<0.001), and donated more recently (1.3 years vs. 2.6 years; P<0.001). There was no difference in psychiatric history or personality type, or current depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, or well-being between the groups (P>0.05). Unspecified kidney donors were more engaged in other altruistic behaviours (P<0.001). There was no difference in physical outcomes, although UKDs recovered quicker (P<0.001). Regret was low (3.7% UKDs vs. 7.5% SKDs; P=0.078). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that UKDs have comparable physical and psychosocial outcomes to SKDs. These favorable outcomes may be, in part, because of the rigorous evaluation process which currently includes a mental health assessment. We conclude that the program can continue to expand safely across the United Kingdom.
BACKGROUND: Unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donation is becoming increasingly common in the United Kingdom. Questions regarding motivation and characteristics of these donors persist, alongside concerns about regret and long-term psychosocial outcomes. The aims of this study were to compare psychosocial and physical outcomes in unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) versus specified kidney donors (SKDs). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, in which a detailed assessment of psychosocial outcomes was made using validated questionnaires. Additional questions specific to donation were also asked, including questions regarding motivation, regret, and anonymity. RESULTS: One hundred ninety responses were received from 296 participants studied (110 UKDs [74.3%] vs. 80 SKDs [54.1%], P<0.001). Unspecified kidney donors were older (54 years vs. 44 years; P<0.001), predominantly white (99.1% vs. 78.5%; P<0.001), and donated more recently (1.3 years vs. 2.6 years; P<0.001). There was no difference in psychiatric history or personality type, or current depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, or well-being between the groups (P>0.05). Unspecified kidney donors were more engaged in other altruistic behaviours (P<0.001). There was no difference in physical outcomes, although UKDs recovered quicker (P<0.001). Regret was low (3.7% UKDs vs. 7.5% SKDs; P=0.078). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that UKDs have comparable physical and psychosocial outcomes to SKDs. These favorable outcomes may be, in part, because of the rigorous evaluation process which currently includes a mental health assessment. We conclude that the program can continue to expand safely across the United Kingdom.
Authors: Rhiannon D Reed; Brittany A Shelton; Paul A MacLennan; Deirdre L Sawinski; Jayme E Locke Journal: Transplantation Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Eitan Novogrodsky; Alan Yaghoubian; Sarah E Connor; Elisabeth Hicks; Grecia B Vargas; Sima Nassiri; Ariella Maghen; Lorna Kwan; Amy D Waterman; Sally L Maliski; Jeffrey L Veale Journal: Health Commun Date: 2017-11-30
Authors: Jay Nath; Kamlesh Patel; Melanie Field; James Hodson; Adnan Sharif; Nicholas G Inston; Andrew R Ready Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2018-11-15
Authors: Paulina Kurleto; Lucyna Tomaszek; Irena Milaniak; Wioletta Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Emma K Massey; Mathilde C Pronk; Willij C Zuidema; Willem Weimar; Jacqueline van de Wetering; Sohal Y Ismail Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2021-07-22
Authors: Lisa Burnapp; Kristof Van Assche; Annette Lennerling; Dorthe Slaats; David Van Dellen; Nizam Mamode; Franco Citterio; Willij Zuidema; Willem Weimar; Frank J M F Dor Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2019-06-15