Table 3.

Fine-Gray proportional subdistribution hazard model for time from evaluation to receiving a deceased-donor kidney transplant^a (n=1036)^b

Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Subdistribution Hazard Ratio	95% Confidence Interval	Subdistribution Hazard Ratio	95% Confidence Interval	Subdistribution Hazard Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
Model 1
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White	1 (ref)		1 (ref)		1 (ref)
Non-Hispanic Black	0.91	0.67 to 1.23	0.92	0.68 to 1.24	0.92	0.67 to 1.26
Model 2
Other demographic characteristics
Age (in yr)			0.98	0.97 to 0.99	0.99	0.98 to 1.00
Medical factors
Charlson Comorbidity Index			0.82	0.75 to 0.90	0.85	0.77 to 0.93
Model 3
Final status after KASc					4.17	3.03 to 5.73
Cultural factors
Overall religiosityd					0.93	0.88 to 0.98
Psychosocial characteristics
Social supportd					1.03	1.00 to 1.05
Transplant knowledge and education
Number of learning activitiesd					1.10	1.02 to 1.19

Higher value, greater amount (or higher score) on a particular variable. KAS, Kidney Allocation System; DDKT, deceased-donor kidney transplant; LDKT, living-donor kidney transplant; SHR, subdistribution hazard ratio.

^aMain event, received DDKT; competing event, LDKT, died; censoring, still on waitlist or other removal; missing, unknown donor type.

^bSample size used for Models 1, 2, and 3: n=1036 (i.e., those with complete data on all variables; 231 received a transplant, 525 died, 280 censored).

^cFinal status after KAS refers to whether the patient’s ultimate outcome (i.e., transplant, died, censored) occurred either before or after the KAS policy changes of 2014 to all of the tables that include this variable.

^dThe SHR for these variables are per one-point higher in each scale.