Table 5.

Predictors of three outcomes: (a) Respondent profiles on donation-specific psychosocial measures among all donors; (b) guilt/ responsibility among donors whose recipient was deceased; and (c) poor HRQOL on the SF-36 Mental Component Score among all donors

Predictora	Respondent profiles on donation-specific psychosocial measures (n=507)															Any guilt or responsibility for recipient’s death (n=91)			Poor HRQOL, Mental Component Summary Score (n=516)
	1. Highest psych. benefit/			2. High psych. benefit/			3. Some psych. benefit/			4. Low psych. benefit/			5. Lowest psych. benefit/
	Mostly Low physical and socioeconomic cost			Some physical and socioeconomic cost			High physical cost/ Some socioeconomic cost			Mostly Low physical and socioeconomic cost			Some physical cost/ High socioeconomic cost
	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p
Male sex	ref			2.45	1.24, 4.86	.010	3.54	1.84, 6.81	<.001	4.44	2.23, 8.81	<.001	6.23	2.84,13.69	<.001	---	---	---	---	---	---
White/European	ref			3.19	1.45, 7.05	.004	7.61	3.21,18.03	<.001	5.58	2.27,13.73	<.001	6.35	2.06,19.57	<.001	---	---	---	---	---	---
Age at donation
19–30	ref			ref			ref			ref			ref			---	---	---	---	---	---
>30–40	ref			0.66	0.26, 1.67	.380	0.95	0.38, 2.38	.907	0.72	0.27, 1.89	.499	0.38	0.12, 1.17	.090
>40–50	ref			0.25	0.10, 0.60	.002	0.31	0.13, 0.74	.008	0.29	0.11, 0.71	.007	0.26	0.09, 0.71	.008
>50–61	ref			0.44	0.15, 1.26	.127	0.67	0.24, 1.96	.441	0.79	0.28, 2.26	.660	0.54	0.17, 1.74	.301
Years since donation	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.76	0.61, 0.97	.025	---	---	---
Length of stay after donation surgery	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	1.14	1.03, 1.27	.009

CI, confidence interval; HRQOL, health-related quality of life; OR, odds ratio; psych., psychological; ref, reference; SF-36, Short-Form-36

^aOther variables that were examined but did not meet criteria for inclusion in final models (all considered with the categorical or continuous variable formats noted in Table 1 unless otherwise noted: education, relationship to recipient (first degree relative, spouse, other relative, unrelated), geographic region where center was located, donor BMI at evaluation, post-operative complications (grade 2+ vs. grade ≤1), whether recipient was deceased, years since recipient died, time from donation to recipient death. Hospital readmission was not included as a potential predictor because very few donors were rehospitalized, and readmissions are included in the Clavien grading of complications. In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed in order to explore whether, aside from geographic region where a center was located, there might be individual center differences on the three outcomes. No sizable or statistically significant center differences emerged, either when center was considered alone in relation to each outcome variable, or when center was included in the multivariable modeling. Moreover, the inclusion of individual center in the multivariable modeling also did not change the effects that were identified as statistically significant in the regression models. Similarly, sensitivity analyses were performed in order to explore whether a finer-grained classification of relationship to recipient (using all categories in Table 1) might reveal associations with the outcomes in either univariate or multivariable modeling. No sizeable or statistically significant effects emerged and inclusion of the finer-grained relationship variable in the multivariable modeling did not affect the statistical significance of the associations reported in the table above.