Brian M Iacoviello1, Akhil Shenoy2, Julia Hunt3, Zorica Filipovic-Jewell2, Brandy Haydel3, Dianne LaPointe Rudow3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. Electronic address: brian.iacoviello@mssm.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Recanati-Miller Transplantation Institute at Mount Sinai, The Zweig Family Center for Living Donation, New York, NY. 3. Recanati-Miller Transplantation Institute at Mount Sinai, The Zweig Family Center for Living Donation, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The psychosocial evaluation is an important part of the live organ donor evaluation process, yet this is not standardized across institutions. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to prospectively test the reliability and validity of a semistructured psychosocial evaluation tool that was recently developed and reported in the literature (the Live Donor Assessment Tool [LDAT]). METHODS: A total of 248 live donor candidates who presented for evaluation were invited to participate in a study that involved the LDAT being scored as part of the standard psychosocial evaluation process; 222 provided informed consent. Evaluations were conducted by staff experienced with psychosocial evaluation of living donors and trained in the use of the LDAT. Furthermore, 123 donor candidates were evaluated twice, as per routine standard of care, and had 2 LDATs administered. Reliability of the LDAT was assessed by calculating the internal consistency of the LDAT items and inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed by comparing LDAT scores across the risk-group categories (the traditional outcome designation of the psychosocial evaluation) and in 86 eventual donors, associations between LDAT scores, and indicators of psychosocial outcomes post-donation. RESULTS: The LDAT was found to have good internal consistency, strong inter-rater reliability, and showed signs of validity: LDAT scores differentiated the traditional risk-group categories, and a significant association between LDAT score and treatment adherence post-donation was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: The LDAT demonstrated good reliability and validity, but future research on the LDAT and the ability to implement the LDAT across institutions is warranted.
BACKGROUND: The psychosocial evaluation is an important part of the live organ donor evaluation process, yet this is not standardized across institutions. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to prospectively test the reliability and validity of a semistructured psychosocial evaluation tool that was recently developed and reported in the literature (the Live Donor Assessment Tool [LDAT]). METHODS: A total of 248 live donor candidates who presented for evaluation were invited to participate in a study that involved the LDAT being scored as part of the standard psychosocial evaluation process; 222 provided informed consent. Evaluations were conducted by staff experienced with psychosocial evaluation of living donors and trained in the use of the LDAT. Furthermore, 123 donor candidates were evaluated twice, as per routine standard of care, and had 2 LDATs administered. Reliability of the LDAT was assessed by calculating the internal consistency of the LDAT items and inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed by comparing LDAT scores across the risk-group categories (the traditional outcome designation of the psychosocial evaluation) and in 86 eventual donors, associations between LDAT scores, and indicators of psychosocial outcomes post-donation. RESULTS: The LDAT was found to have good internal consistency, strong inter-rater reliability, and showed signs of validity: LDAT scores differentiated the traditional risk-group categories, and a significant association between LDAT score and treatment adherence post-donation was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: The LDAT demonstrated good reliability and validity, but future research on the LDAT and the ability to implement the LDAT across institutions is warranted.
Authors: Lieke Wirken; Henriët van Middendorp; Christina W Hooghof; Jan-Stephan Sanders; Ruth Dam; Karlijn A M I van der Pant; Judith Wierdsma; Hiske Wellink; Philip Ulrichts; Andries J Hoitsma; Luuk B Hilbrands; Andrea W Evers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 2.692