Dataset Information

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Many donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.

Design, setting and participants

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor-recipient pairs before the transplant and 11-14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

Results

We identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).

Conclusions

Donor-recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.

SUBMITTER: Ralph AF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500358 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews.

Ralph Angelique F AF Butow Phyllis P Craig Jonathan C JC Wong Germaine G Chadban Steve J SJ Luxton Grant G Gutman Talia T Hanson Camilla S CS Ju Angela A Tong Allison A

BMJ open 20190404 4

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Many donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.<h4>Design, setting and participants</h4>Semistructured interviews ...[more]

PMID: 30948607

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe proportion of living donor kidney transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients is increasing in the US.ObjectiveTo examine the association between donor-recipient biological relationship and allograft survival after living donor kidney transplant.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data on US adult living donor kidney transplants (n = 86 154) performed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014, excluding cases in which recipients previously received a kidney transplant (n = 10 342) or key data were missing (n = 2832). Last follow-up was March 20, 2020.ExposuresDonor-recipient biological relationship.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was death-censored allograft failure. Univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses were performed for death-censored allograft failure for the overall cohort, then separately for recipients with and without primary diagnoses of cystic kidney disease and for transplants from African American and non-African American donors.ResultsAmong the 72 980 transplant donor and recipients included in the study (median donor age, 41 years; interquartile range [IQR], 32-50 years; 43 990 [60%] female; 50 014 [69%] White), 43 174 (59%) donors and recipients were biologically related and 29 806 (41%) were unrelated. Donors related to their recipients were younger (median [IQR] age, 39 [31-48] vs 44 [35-52] years) and less likely to be female (24 848 [58%] vs 19 142 [64%]) or White (26 933 [62%] vs 23 081 [77%]). Recipients related to their donors were younger (median [IQR] age, 48 [34-58] vs 50 [40-58] years), more likely to be female (18 035 [42%] vs 10 530 [35%]), and less likely to have cystic kidney disease (2530 [6%] vs 4600 [15%]). Related pairs had fewer HLA mismatches overall (median [IQR], 3 [2-3] vs 5 [4-5]). After adjustment for HLA mismatches, donor and recipient characteristics, and transplant era, donor-recipient biological relationship was associated with higher death-censored allograft failure (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = .03). When stratified by primary disease, this association persisted only for recipients without cystic kidney disease. When stratified by donor race, this association persisted only for transplants from African American donors.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, living donor kidney transplants from donors biologically related to their recipients had higher rates of allograft failure than transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients after HLA matching was accounted for. Further study is needed to determine which genetic or socioenvironmental factors are associated with this finding.

Project description:BackgroundDifferent diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.MethodData collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.ResultsA total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97).ConclusionsThe MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Dataset Information

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews.

Background and objectives

Design, setting and participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure