Influence of Self-Determination and Social Support on Post-Traumatic Growth among Living Kidney Donors: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Although many studies have reported that kidney donation is not physically harmful to living kidney donors, there are few studies on the psychological changes that they experience, especially post-traumatic growth. This study aimed to investigate the influence of self-determination and social support on post-traumatic growth among living kidney donors. Materials and Methods: This study used a descriptive, cross-sectional design. Data were collected from 114 living kidney donors who visited the outpatient solid organ transplant center at Seoul National University Hospital. The data were analyzed using the t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and stepwise multiple regression. Results: The results showed that the mean for post-traumatic growth of living kidney donors was 4.24 (0.81), a level higher than the midpoint. The factors affecting total post-traumatic growth were the relatedness of self-determination, the social support of their significant other, and donor type. In particular, the relatedness of self-determination was a significant factor affecting changed perceptions of self, relating to others, and spiritual change, subscales of post-traumatic growth. Additionally, the social support of donors’ significant others was a significant factor affecting relating to others and new possibilities, subscales of post-traumatic growth. Conclusions: Healthcare providers should endeavor to help living kidney donors experience post-traumatic growth, which can be facilitated by improving their self-determination and social support.

Post-Donation Evaluation: Emotional Needs for Social Connection and Social Support among Living Kidney Donors—A Systematic Review

“…The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with research conducted in the United States [ 2 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], Germany [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ], the Netherlands [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], India [ 1 , 28 , 29 ], Sweden [ 30 , 31 ], Brazil [ 32 ], China [ 33 ], Iran [ 34 ], Korea [ 35 ], Malaysia [ 36 ], Spain [ 37 ], Taiwan [ 38 ], Turkey [ 39 , 40 ], and the UK [ 41 ], and studies conducted across Canada and Australia [ 15 , 16 ]. Notably, most of the studies originated from Western countries.…”

“…Of the 28 studies, 13 included related donors (e.g., parents, siblings, partners, or friends) only [ 1 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 28 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], 12 studies included both related and unspecified donors [ 2 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 41 ], while 3 papers did not report the donor–recipient relationship [ 24 , 25 , 32 ]. The mean age of the donors ranged from 36.45 (SD = 16.9) to 58 (SD = 11) years.…”

“…As for the cross-sectional retrospective studies, they covered a wide timeframe, spanning from 1 to 38 years post-donation [ 1 , 12 , 17 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. However, one study [ 35 ] did not provide information on the time elapsed from donation to study participation. In most of the cross-sectional studies, donors’ social functioning and relationships were compared with those of the general population [ 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 35 , 36 , 39 ].…”

“…However, one study [ 35 ] did not provide information on the time elapsed from donation to study participation. In most of the cross-sectional studies, donors’ social functioning and relationships were compared with those of the general population [ 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 35 , 36 , 39 ].…”

“…Regarding the retrospective studies, three studies found that donors’ social functioning was better than that of the general population [ 22 , 23 , 36 ] and that donation had a positive influence on their relationship with the recipient [ 1 , 2 ] and recognition from the society [ 1 ]. Lower social support was associated with lower positive effect post-donation [ 38 ], and social support and satisfaction of the relatedness need were associated with donors’ post-traumatic growth [ 35 ]. By contrast, three studies observed no significant differences between donors’ and the general population’s social functioning.…”