Prospective Psychosocial Monitoring of Living Kidney Donors Using the Short Form-36 Health Survey: Results at 12 Months

Smith, Graeme C.; Trauer, Tom; Kerr, Peter G.; Chadban, Steven J.

doi:10.1097/01.tp.0000140967.34029.f1

Cited by 91 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A decision to follow donors prospectively in time was described in 10 studies (32,37,39,52,53,63,65,71,72,77). .…”

Section: Methods Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of donors considered for follow-up was often unreported and thus for some studies, the response rate could not be calculated (37,39,41,52,56,59,64,68,72 (40,44,46,48,50,60,62,63,65,73,78) and five compared their characteristics to responders (40,44,46,50,65).…”

Section: Psychosocial Health Of Live Kidney Donorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority were married and employed at the time of follow-up. Twenty-three studies described the use of routine preoperative screening (30)(31)(32)34,40,45,46,(49)(50)(51)53,54,56,60,61,63,67,70,71,73,74,77,78) and 3 reported that some donors had a psychiatric history prior to donation (30,34,63).…”

Section: Description Of Donorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies were from 19 countries; most were conducted in the United States (43% of studies) followed by Germany (10%), Canada (6%), India (4%), Sweden (4%), Australia (4%), the Netherlands (4%) and Switzerland (4%). During follow-up, 46 studies assessed the physical health of donors (29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)38,(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(48)(49)(50)(51)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79) and 26 reported that some donors had faced graft failure or recipient death (29,(31)(32)…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Psychosocial Health of Living Kidney Donors: A Systematic Review

Clemens

Thiessen‐Philbrook

Parikh

et al. 2006

American Journal of Transplantation

253

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of the psychosocial benefits and harms faced by living kidney donors is necessary for informed consent and follow-up. We reviewed any English language study where psychosocial function was assessed using questionnaires in 10 or more donors after nephrectomy. We searched MEDLINE, EM-BASE, Web of Science, Psych INFO, Sociological Abstracts and CINAHL databases and reviewed reference lists from 1969 through July 2006. Independently, two reviewers abstracted data on study, donor and control group characteristics, psychosocial measurements and their outcomes. Fifty-one studies examined 5139 donors who were assessed an average of 4 years after nephrectomy. The majority experienced no depression (77-95%) or anxiety (86-94%), with questionnaire scores similar to controls. The majority reported no change or an improved relationship with their recipient (86-100%), spouse (82-98%), family members (83-100%) and nonrecipient children (95-100%). Some experienced an increase in self-esteem. A majority (83-93%) expressed no change in their attractiveness. Although many scored high on quality of life measures, some prospective studies described a decrease after donation. A small proportion of donors had adverse psychosocial outcomes. Most kidney donors experience no change or an improvement in their psychosocial health after donation. Harms may be minimized through careful selection and follow-up.

show abstract

“…A decision to follow donors prospectively in time was described in 10 studies (32,37,39,52,53,63,65,71,72,77). .…”

Section: Methods Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Psychosocial Health Of Live Kidney Donorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Donorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychosocial Health of Living Kidney Donors: A Systematic Review

Clemens

Thiessen‐Philbrook

Parikh

et al. 2006

American Journal of Transplantation

253

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 Although there have been few studies that explored the minor's psychological response to serving as an organ donor, the adult literature shows that individuals may have unexpected reactions to donation. [52][53][54] The minor needs to understand that the donated organ may fail or may be rejected by the recipient or that the original cause of the organ failure may recur and that the outcome is beyond his or her control. 19,21,53 The literature shows that many donors feel neglected after donation as the focus returns to the ill recipient.…”

Section: Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minors as Living Solid-Organ Donors

Ross¹,

Thistlethwaite²

2008

Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past half-century, solid-organ transplantation has become standard treatment for a variety of diseases in children and adults. The major limitation for all transplantation is the availability of donors, and the gap between demand and supply continues to grow despite the increase in living donors. Although rare, children do serve as living donors, and these donations raise serious ethical issues. This clinical report includes a discussion of the ethical considerations regarding minors serving as living donors, using the traditional benefit/burden calculus from the perspectives of both the donor and the recipient. The report also includes an examination of the circumstances under which a minor may morally participate as a living donor, how to minimize risks, and what the informed-consent process should entail. The American Academy of Pediatrics holds that minors can morally serve as living organ donors but only in exceptional circumstances when specific criteria are fulfilled. Pediatrics 2008;122:454-461 INTRODUCTIONIn the past half-century, solid-organ transplantation has become standard treatment for a variety of diseases in children and adults. The major limitation for all transplantation is the availability of donors. The gap between demand and supply is attributable to a multitude of factors including failure to procure consent for many potential deceased donors, the growing number of indications for transplantation, and the realization that transplantation can benefit an increasing number of individuals with end-stage organ failure, including those with significant comorbidities. Despite numerous policy attempts to increase the number of deceased donor organs 1 and the acceptance of "expanded-criteria donors," 2,3 the deceased donor supply is inadequate to meet the growing demand. Instead, living donors constitute an ever-growing proportion of organ donors. Initially restricted to first-degree genetic relatives, living donation then expanded to include more distant genetically related relatives (eg, cousins), emotionally related relatives (eg, spouses), and friends (those with whom the recipient had a strong personal bond) and more recently has expanded to include altruistic strangers. 4 Liberalization of medical criteria and upper age criteria also has permitted more people to qualify as living donors. In 2001, for the first time, more kidney donors were living than deceased, and the trend persists. 5 Living donors have also provided segments of livers and, less frequently, lungs, pancreases, intestines, and skin for transplantation.Although minors are more likely to be organ recipients than living donors, minors have served as living donors. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that minors may ethically serve as living donors but only in specific, limited circumstances. A minor will most likely be considered to serve as a living organ donor for a minor sibling, although there may be rare cases in which it is morally appropriate for a donation to be considered from a minor donor ...

show abstract