Literature DB >> 35372891

Impact of Social Media on Self-Referral Patterns for Living Kidney Donation.

Bernard J DuBray1, Saed H Shawar2, Scott A Rega3, Kristin M Smith3, Kaylin M Centanni3, Kara Warmke3, Beatrice P Concepcion2, Gretchen C Edwards4, Heidi M Schaefer2, Irene D Feurer5, Rachel C Forbes1.   

Abstract

Background: As the organ-shortage crisis continues to worsen, many patients in need of a kidney transplant have turned to social media to find a living donor. The effect of social media on living kidney donation is not known. The goal of this study is to investigate the influence of social media on those interested in donating a kidney.
Methods: Self-referrals for living kidney donation from December 2016 to March 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Age, sex, race, and relationship of individuals petitioned through social media (SM) were compared with those petitioned through verbal communication (VC). Data were analyzed using chi-squared tests, with z tests of column proportions, and multivariable logistic regression.
Results: A total of 7817 individuals (53% SM, 36% VC, and 10% other) were self-referred for living kidney donation. The analysis sample included 6737 adults petitioned through SM (n=3999) or VC (n=2738). Half (n=3933) of the individuals reported an altruistic relationship, and 94% of these respondents were petitioned through SM. Although univariate analyses indicated that SM respondents were younger, more likely female, more likely White, and more likely to have directed altruistic intent than those petitioned through VC (all P<0.05), multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that only decreased age, female sex, and relationship were significantly related to likelihood of SM use (all P<0.001). Conclusions: The use of SM to petition living kidney donors is prevalent and accounts for a greater proportion of respondents compared with VC. SM respondents tend to be younger, female, and altruistic compared with VC. Directed altruistic interest in kidney donation is almost exclusively generated through SM.
Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  kidney transplantation; living donation; referral and consultation; social media; tissue and organ harvesting; transplantation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 35372891      PMCID: PMC8815533          DOI: 10.34067/KID.0003212020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kidney360        ISSN: 2641-7650


  19 in total

1.  Disparity between solid-organ supply and demand.

Authors:  Anthony J Langone; J Harold Helderman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-08-14       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Understanding the sex disparity in living kidney donation.

Authors:  G V Ramesh Prasad
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  A Smartphone App for Increasing Live Organ Donation.

Authors:  K Kumar; E A King; A D Muzaale; J M Konel; K A Bramstedt; A B Massie; D L Segev; A M Cameron
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 8.086

5.  Social media in medicine: a game changer?

Authors:  Matthew P M Graham-Brown; Tom Oates
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 5.992

6.  OPTN/SRTR 2018 Annual Data Report: Introduction.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  Social media and organ donor registration: the Facebook effect.

Authors:  A M Cameron; A B Massie; C E Alexander; B Stewart; R A Montgomery; N R Benavides; G D Fleming; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 8.086

8.  The decline in living kidney donation in the United States: random variation or cause for concern?

Authors:  James R Rodrigue; Jesse D Schold; Didier A Mandelbrot
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 4.939

9.  Shipping living donor kidneys and transplant recipient outcomes.

Authors:  Eric Treat; Eric K H Chow; John D Peipert; Amy Waterman; Lorna Kwan; Allan B Massie; Alvin G Thomas; Mary Grace Bowring; David Leeser; Stuart Flechner; Marc L Melcher; Sandip Kapur; Dorry L Segev; Jeffrey Veale
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 9.369

10.  Empathy, social media, and directed altruistic living organ donation.

Authors:  Greg Moorlock; Heather Draper
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 1.898

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.