Abstract
Background
Lack of education and reluctance to initiate a conversation about live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is a common barrier to finding a donor. While transplant candidates are often hesitant to discuss their illness, friends or family members are often eager to spread awareness, and are empowered by advocating for the candidates. We hypothesized that separating the advocate from the patient is important in identifying live donors.
Methods
We developed an intervention to train a Live Donor Champion (LDC) (a friend, family member, or community member willing to advocate for the candidate) for this advocacy role. We compared outcomes of 15 adult KT candidates who had no prospective donors and underwent the LDC intervention with 15 matched controls from our waiting list.
Results
Comfort in initiating a conversation about transplantation increased over time for LDCs. Twenty-five potential donors contacted our center on behalf of LDC participants; four participants achieved LDKT and three additional participants have donors in evaluation, compared to zero among matched controls (p<0.001).
Conclusions
Transplant candidates are ill-equipped to seek live donors; by separating the advocate from the patient, understandable concerns about initiating conversations are reduced.
Keywords: Education, Live Donor Transplantation, Communication Strategies
INTRODUCTION
Despite improved graft function and longevity, live donor transplants are only a moderate proportion of kidney transplants (KT) performed in the United States (1). Additionally, live donation rates have remained relatively stable over the past decade, despite evidence that as many as 1 in 4 people would be willing to donate if they knew that a family member, community member or even a stranger were in need of an organ (2). Previously identified barriers to finding a live donor include lack of education and knowledge about live donation, as well as hesitance to initiate a conversation about live donation (3–5). Barnieh et. al demonstrated that knowledge of how to ask someone to donate was the most prevalent barrier identified by transplant candidates (6).
In general, transplant candidates are hesitant to discuss their illness and the difficulties associated with dialysis, and are therefore reluctant to pursue live donation (7–9). However, friends or family members are often eager to spread awareness about their loved one's plight, and are empowered by advocating for them (10–12). Successful campaigns using media and other modalities of communication on behalf of patients have been led by parents, spouses, and other family members (13–14).
We hypothesized that separating the advocate from the patient may alleviate barriers experienced by transplant candidates in initiating conversations about live donation and identifying live donors. We conducted a prospective study of a novel intervention that facilitated this separation of advocate from patient. Namely, each patient was paired with a live donor champion (LDC) - a friend, family member or community member willing to advocate for the patient. We compared participants with matched controls from our waiting list to explore the ability of the LDC intervention to attenuate the communication barrier experienced by transplant candidates and lead to increased live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).
RESULTS
Study Population
Participants were on average 57 years old (SD 9.9), 33% male and 67% married. Matched controls were similar in demographics, including age, gender, race, time on waiting list, blood type, diabetes status, cause of kidney failure and education level (Table 1A). LDCs were on average 52 years old (SD 13.8) and 47% male. Most LDCs were spouses (67%) while the remaining were other family members (20%) or friends (13%) (Table 1B). All patient-LDC pairs were of the same race.
Table 1.
Characteristics of LDC-lntervention Transplant Candidates and Matched Controls (A), Characteristics of the Live Donor Champions (B), and Outcomes of Both Cohorts (C).
| A. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| LDC Participants (n=15) | Matched Controls (n=15) | P-Value | |
| Participant Characteristics | |||
| Age at enrollment (Years; Mean) | 56.9 | 55.5 | 0.7 |
| Wait-list time (Months; Median) | 5 | 8 | 0.9 |
| Female | 10 | 5 | 0.07 |
| Race | |||
| Caucasian | 7 | 5 | 0.5 |
| African American | 7 | 9 | |
| Other | 1 | 1 | |
| ABO | |||
| A | 4 | 4 | 1.0 |
| B | 0 | 0 | |
| AB | 0 | 0 | |
| O | 11 | 11 | |
| Diabetes | 2 | 2 | 1.0 |
| Cause of ESRD | |||
| Diabetes | 2 | 2 | 0.5 |
| Hypertension | 4 | 6 | |
| Polycystic Kidney Disease | 3 | 0 | |
| Glomerulonephritis | 4 | 5 | |
| Other | 2 | 2 | |
| Education | |||
| None | 1 | 0 | 0.9 |
| High School or GED | 4 | 5 | |
| Technical School | 4 | 5 | |
| College | 2 | 2 | |
| Post-graduate Education | 4 | 3 | |
| B. | |
|---|---|
| LDC Characteristics | |
| Age at enrollment (Mean) | 52.2 |
| Female | 7 |
| Race | |
| Caucasian | 7 |
| African American | 7 |
| Other | 1 |
| Relationship | |
| Spouse | 10 |
| Family | 3 |
| Friend | 2 |
| C. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Donor Inquiries | 25 | 0 | <0.001 |
| Outcomes | |||
| Live Donor Transplantation | 4 | 0 | <0.001 |
| Live Donor Evaluation Pending | 3 | 0 | |
| Deceased Donor Transplantation | 4 | 5 | |
| Deaths | 0 | 0 | |
| Wait-listed | 4 | 10 | |
Cells represent number of patients unless otherwise specified.
Barriers to Live Donation
LDCs reported many barriers to identifying a live donor such as fear of initiating a conversation (100% of LDCs reported this barrier at the beginning of the study), being embarrassed to ask others about donation (60%), not knowing who to ask (80%) and lack of knowledge about kidney failure and live donation (80%). In openended questions, participants additionally mentioned concerns about religious and cultural issues, for example living donation among Jehovah's witnesses. All participants wanted more educational materials and assistance with their conversation skills. Additionally, most participants wanted a support group atmosphere and available internet resources.
Comfort in Initiating a Conversation about Live Donation
At baseline, LDCs were more comfortable approaching a family member (mean score 1.2) and least comfortable approaching a stranger (mean score 0.4). Over the course of the study, LDCs became more comfortable overall initiating a conversation about live donation (mean baseline comfort score 0.92 and mean final comfort score 1.96, p<0.001; Figure 1). By subgroup, LDCs became more comfortable approaching friends (baseline 1.2 and final 2.16, p=0.03), community members (baseline 0.8 and final 1.8, p=0.04), religious group members (baseline 1.0 and final 2.0, p=0.001), and strangers (baseline 0.4 and final 1.6, p<0.001) as the intervention progressed. While a trend for increased comfort approaching a family member was observed, this was not statistically significant (mean baseline score 1.2 and mean final score 2.2, p=0.07).
Figure 1.
Champion Comfort Approaching Various Groups About Live Donation Longitudinal responses to the following question: “How comfortable are you, as a live donor champion, at initiating a conversation about live donation and asking a [x] to consider donating a kidney?” (0=Uncomfortable, 1=Slighty Comfortable, 2=Moderately Comfortable, 3=Very Comfortable)
Donor Evaluation and Transplantation
On behalf of LDC participants, 25 potential donors contacted our center. Of these, 4 had completed evaluation and donated by the end of study and 3 are still completing their evaluation. On behalf of matched controls, there were no donor inquiries or live donor transplants (Table 1C). These outcome differences between LDC participants and matched controls were statistically significant (p<0.001). There were 4 deceased donor transplants in the LDC group compared to 5 in the matched control group. There were no deaths in either group.
DISCUSSION
This single-center prospective study focused on training a LDC in order to separate the advocate from the patient and alleviate the barriers associated with identifying a live donor. Despite expressing reticence about approaching potential donors, LDC comfort in approaching others about donation improved throughout the 6-month intervention. More importantly, despite having no potential donors at the time of enrollment, 25 potential donor inquiries were received on behalf of LDC program participants, 4 participants received live donor transplants, and 3 more have donors currently finishing the evaluation process, compared with none among matched controls from out waiting list.
A number of previous studies have attempted to understand and address barriers to identifying a live donor. Multiple cross-sectional surveys and retrospective analyses of live donors have demonstrated that the educational needs of those interested in live donation were not met (17). In a recent cross-sectional study, Waterman et al reported that more than 75% of their kidney recipients felt inappropriately educated about live donation (18). They hypothesized that lack of education may hinder both patients and donors from pursuing live donation. Lunsford et al suggested that education was the best way to attract live donation and dispel myths associated with living donation (19). While a handful of educational programs have been reported, ranging from short instructional videos to an educational question and answer session with transplant staff, many patients still felt ill equipped to pursue live donation and ask others to consider donating (1, 20–22), and interventions of education alone have not been shown to be particularly effective at increasing live donor transplantation rates for participants.
It is important to note that this study is subject to selection bias since enrollment was voluntary. It is plausible that our participants were more motivated and enthusiastic than the wait-list population as a whole. However, no participants had potential live donors at the onset of the study, so motivation alone (assuming there was a difference in motivation between LDC participants and matched controls) had not led them to successfully identifying a live donor prior to participation in the LDC program. In addition, participants had to be able to identify a willing champion, which may limit our sample to those with some social network. But again, the presence of a social network alone (also assuming a difference between participants and matched controls) had not led them to successfully identifying a live donor prior to participation in the LDC program; also, all patients who expressed an interest in participating in the program were able to easily identify a LDC. While the potential selection bias for this study might affect its generalizability to our entire waiting list, or to other waiting lists, the inferences of the efficacy of this intervention in the particular population that participated are likely robust, with dramatic differences between the LDC participants and matched controls.
In conclusion, approaching and recruiting live donors is a daunting and overwhelming experience for kidney transplant candidates. Current educational modalities or interventions do not adequately meet the needs of patients who would like to pursue and identify live donors. Education alone is not sufficient to decrease the anxiety and fear associated with approaching potential donors. In this trial, LDCs successfully helped increase comfort and decrease concerns associated with approaching a live donor. A dramatic proportion of participants (almost 50%) identified live donors, compared with matched controls for whom no live donors were identified. The live donor champion intervention is inexpensive and can help to decrease wait-list times by increasing the donor pool.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Population
This was a single-center prospective cohort study of 15 adult kidney transplant candidates who had been on the Johns Hopkins KT wait-list for at least 3 months and had no potential live donors at the time of enrollment. A 3-month time period was chosen to exclude recently listed candidates who might be actively approaching potential donors. Each patient was asked to identify a LDC who would attend monthly meetings. Initially, 14/15 (94%) participants were able to identify an LDC. The one participant who was unable to find an LDC was supported by an additional LDC who was identified by an intervention participant who already had an LDC. For each participant, a matched control was identified who was (a) on the waiting list at the beginning of the study, (b) met the inclusion criteria for the study, and (c) was matched on age, gender, race, time on wait-list, blood type, diabetes status, cause of kidney failure and education level using previously reported techniques (15–16). The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University Institutional Review Board.
Intervention
Based on review of the available literature, clinical judgment, and formative in-depth interviews with wait-listed patients, an intervention was designed. Five session topics were designed (Table 2) to address common barriers associated with identifying a live donor, including (but not limited to) education about kidney failure and live donation, and methods of initiating a conversation about live donation and communication. The intervention occurred over a 6 month time period, throughout which LDCs were provided with educational resources to distribute to potential donors. Additionally, they were given business cards to legitimize and formalize their role and provide them with an additional method of distributing the transplant center contact information.
Table 2.
Live Donor Champion Educational Intervention: Session Content
| Session | Session Title | Session Details |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction to Kidney Transplantation and the Live Donor Champion Intervention |
|
| 2 | Initiating a Conversation With Potential Live Donors |
|
| 3 | Spreading the Word |
|
| 4 | Success Stories: Transplant Recipient and Live Donor Panel |
|
| 5 | Program Recap |
|
Outcome Assessment
Participants and matched controls were followed for 9 months after completion of the intervention, with live donor transplantation as the primary outcome of interest. Potential donors calling our transplant center on behalf of a study participant or matched control were tallied. A survey was administered at the beginning and end of each session visit to assess LDC knowledge, perceived barriers to identifying a live donor and comfort with initiating a conversation about live donation (Likert scale from 0=Uncomfortable to 3=Very Comfortable).
Statistical Analysis
Baseline characteristics were compared using t-tests for pseudonormally distributed variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables. Differences in outcome distribution (donor inquiries, live donor transplantation, donor evaluation, deceased donor transplantation, death on the waiting list, or remaining on the waiting list) between participants in the LDC intervention and their matched controls were assessed using a Fisher's exact test. Increase in comfort was modeled using a linear random effects model with robust standard error estimates to account for multiple observations over time for each individual. Estimates for LDC comfort approaching various subgroups (family, friend, community member, religious group member and stranger) and an overall average comfort score were obtained. All data were analyzed using STATA 11 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This publication was made possible by Grant Number 5KL2RR025006-04 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NCRR or NIH. Information on NCRR is available at http://www.ncrr.nih.gov. Information on Re-engineering the Clinical Research Enterprise can be obtained from http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/clinicalresearch/overview-translational.asp.
ABBREVIATION LIST
- ESRD
End-stage Renal Disease
- DDKT
Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation
- KT
Kidney Transplant
- LDC
Live Donor Champion
- LDKT
Live Donor Kidney Transplantation
Footnotes
Author Contributions: J.G., R.M., and D.S. participated in research design.
J.G., J.B., R.R, L.K., N.D., B.B., R.M., E.C., and D.S. participated in the writing of the paper.
J.G., J.B., R.R, L.K., N.D., B.B., E.C., and D.S participated in the performance of the research.
J.G., N.J, and D.S. participated in data analysis.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
REFERENCES
- 1.Reese PP, Shea JA, Berns JS, Simon MK, Joffe MM, Bloom RD, et al. Recruitment of live donors by candidates for kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Jul;3(4):1152–9. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03660807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Foundation NK. Public Says “Yes” to Strangers. 2000. updated June 22, 2000; cited 2010 January 1, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Pradel FG, Limcangco MR, Mullins CD, Bartlett ST. Patients' attitudes about living donor transplantation and living donor nephrectomy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Apr;41(4):849–58. doi: 10.1016/s0272-6386(03)00033-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Kaplan B, Howard RJ. Patients' willingness to talk to others about living kidney donation. Prog Transplant. 2008 Mar;18(1):25–31. doi: 10.1177/152692480801800107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hiller J, Sroka M, Weber R, Morrison AS, Ratner LE. Identifying donor concerns to increase live organ donation. J Transpl Coord. 1998 Mar;8(1):51–4. doi: 10.7182/prtr.1.8.1.m5h2r1217m353t16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Barnieh L, McLaughlin K, Manns B, Klarenbach S, Yilmaz S, Hemmelgarn B. Development of a survey to identify barriers to living donation in kidney transplant candidates. Prog Transplant. 2009 Dec;19(4):304–11. doi: 10.1177/152692480901900404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Burroughs TE, Waterman AD, Hong BA. One organ donation, three perspectives: experiences of donors, recipients, and third parties with living kidney donation. Prog Transplant. 2003 Jun;13(2):142–50. doi: 10.1177/152692480301300212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hays R, Waterman AD. Improving preemptive transplant education to increase living donation rates: reaching patients earlier in their disease adjustment process. Prog Transplant. 2008 Dec;18(4):251–6. doi: 10.1177/152692480801800407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Waterman AD, Covelli T, Caisley L, Zerega W, Schnitzler M, Adams D, et al. Potential living kidney donors' health education use and comfort with donation. Prog Transplant. 2004 Sep;14(3):233–40. doi: 10.1177/152692480401400309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Dokken D, Ahmann E. The many roles of family members in “family-centered care”--part I. Pediatr Nurs. 2006 Nov-Dec;32(6):562–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sydnor-Greenberg N, Dokken D. Coping and caring in different ways: understanding and meaningful involvement. Pediatr Nurs. 2000 Mar-Apr;26(2):185–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Clarke JN. Advocacy: essential work for mothers of children living with cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2006;24(2):31–47. doi: 10.1300/J077v24n02_03. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Verghese PS, Garvey CA, Mauer MS, Matas AJ. Media appeals by pediatric patients for living donors and the impact on a transplant center. Transplantation. 2011 Mar 27;91(6):593–6. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182063066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Glazier AK, Sasjack S. Should It Be Illicit to Solicit? A Legal Analysis of Policy Options to Regulate Solicitation for Organs for Transplant. Bepress Legal Series [serial on the Internet] 2006 Paper 1273: Available from: http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1273. [PubMed]
- 15.Segev DL, Muzaale AD, Caffo BS, Mehta SH, Singer AL, Taranto SE, et al. Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation. JAMA. 2010 Mar 10;303(10):959–66. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Montgomery RA, Lonze BE, King KE, Kraus ES, Kucirka LM, Locke JE, et al. Desensitization in HLA-incompatible kidney recipients and survival. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 28;365(4):318–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1012376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cantarovich F. The role of education in increasing organ donation. Ann Transplant. 2004;9(1):39–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Waterman AD, Stanley SL, Covelli T, Hazel E, Hong BA, Brennan DC. Living donation decision making: recipients' concerns and educational needs. Prog Transplant. 2006 Mar;16(1):17–23. doi: 10.1177/152692480601600105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lunsford SL, Shilling LM, Chavin KD, Martin MS, Miles LG, Norman ML, et al. Racial differences in the living kidney donation experience and implications for education. Prog Transplant. 2007 Sep;17(3):234–40. doi: 10.1177/152692480701700312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Connelly JO, O'Keefe N, Hathaway D, Wicks MN. Impact of a human interest video on living-donor kidney donation rates. J Biocommun. 1999;26(4):7–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Lin JK, Kaplan B, Howard RJ. Increasing live donor kidney transplantation: a randomized controlled trial of a home-based educational intervention. Am J Transplant. 2007 Feb;7(2):394–401. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01623.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sites AK, Freeman JR, Harper MR, Waters DB, Pruett TL. A multidisciplinary program to educate and advocate for living donors. Prog Transplant. 2008 Dec;18(4):284–9. doi: 10.1177/152692480801800411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Pradel FG, Suwannaprom P, Mullins CD, Sadler J, Bartlett ST. Haemodialysis patients' readiness to pursue live donor kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009 Apr;24(4):1298–305. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfn733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]