Lianne Barnieh1, David Collister2, Braden Manns3,4, Ngan N Lam1, Soroush Shojai1, Diane Lorenzetti4, John S Gill5, Scott Klarenbach6. 1. Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Community Health Sciences and. 4. Department of Medicine, Institute of Public Health and Libin Cardiovascular Institute, Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; and. 5. Division of Nephrology, Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcomes Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; swk@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The literature on strategies to increase the number of potential living kidney donors is extensive and has yet to be characterized. Scoping reviews are a novel methodology for systematically assessing a wide breadth of a given body of literature and may be done before conducting a more targeted systematic review. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a scoping review and summarized the evidence for existing strategies to increase living kidney donation. RESULTS: Our review identified seven studies that tested interventions using rigorous methods (i.e., randomized, controlled trials) and outcome measures, all of which focused on using education targeted at potential recipients to increase living donation. Of these, two studies that targeted the potential recipients' close social network reported statistically significant results. Other interventions were identified, but their effect was assessed through quasiexperimental or observational study designs. CONCLUSIONS: We identified an important gap in the literature for evidence-based strategies to increase living kidney donation. From the limited data available, strategies directed at potential recipients and their social networks are the most promising. These results can inform transplant programs that are considering strategies to increase living kidney donation and highlight the need for conduct of high-quality study to increase living donation.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The literature on strategies to increase the number of potential living kidney donors is extensive and has yet to be characterized. Scoping reviews are a novel methodology for systematically assessing a wide breadth of a given body of literature and may be done before conducting a more targeted systematic review. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a scoping review and summarized the evidence for existing strategies to increase living kidney donation. RESULTS: Our review identified seven studies that tested interventions using rigorous methods (i.e., randomized, controlled trials) and outcome measures, all of which focused on using education targeted at potential recipients to increase living donation. Of these, two studies that targeted the potential recipients' close social network reported statistically significant results. Other interventions were identified, but their effect was assessed through quasiexperimental or observational study designs. CONCLUSIONS: We identified an important gap in the literature for evidence-based strategies to increase living kidney donation. From the limited data available, strategies directed at potential recipients and their social networks are the most promising. These results can inform transplant programs that are considering strategies to increase living kidney donation and highlight the need for conduct of high-quality study to increase living donation.
Keywords:
Living Donors; Nephrectomy; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Social Support; Tissue and Organ Harvesting; end stage kidney disease; kidney; kidney donation; kidney transplantation
Authors: Lianne Barnieh; Kevin McLaughlin; Braden J Manns; Scott Klarenbach; Serdar Yilmaz; Ken Taub; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: Prog Transplant Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.065
Authors: Nicole DePasquale; Matthew J Ellis; Debra L Sudan; Patti L Ephraim; Lisa M McElroy; Dinushika Mohottige; Clemontina A Davenport; Xiyuan Zhang; Sarah B Peskoe; Tara S Strigo; Ashley N Cabacungan; Iris Pounds; Jennie A Riley; Margaret Falkovic; L Ebony Boulware Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Amy D Waterman; John D Peipert; Yujie Cui; Jennifer L Beaumont; Andrea Paiva; Amanda F Lipsey; Crystal S Anderson; Mark L Robbins Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Avrum Gillespie; Heather M Gardiner; Edward L Fink; Peter P Reese; Crystal A Gadegbeku; Zoran Obradovic Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.939