Dataset Information

Has the UK living kidney donor population changed over time? A cross-sectional descriptive analysis of the UK living donor registry between 2006 and 2017.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A living-donor kidney transplant is the best treatment for most people with kidney failure. Population cohort studies have shown that lifetime living kidney donor risk is modified by sex, age, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity and relationship to the recipient.

Objectives

We investigated whether the UK population of living kidney donors has changed over time, investigating changes in donor demographics.

Design

We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of the UK living kidney donor registry between January 2006 to December 2017. Data were available on living donor sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, hypertension and relationship to recipient.

Setting

UK living donor registry.

Participants

11?651 consecutive living kidney donors from January 2006 to December 2017.

Outcome measures

Living kidney donor demographic characteristics (sex, age, ethnicity, BMI and relationship to the transplant recipient) were compared across years of donation activity. Donor characteristics were also compared across different ethnic groups.

Results

Over the study period, the mean age of donors increased (from 45.8 to 48.7 years, p<0.001), but this change appears to have been limited to the White population of donors. Black donors were younger than White donors, and a greater proportion were siblings of their intended recipient and male. The proportion of non-genetically related non-partner donations increased over the 12-year period of analysis (p value for linear trend=0.002).

Conclusions

The increasing age of white living kidney donors in the UK has implications for recipient and donor outcomes. Despite an increase in the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals waitlisted for a kidney transplant, there has been no increase in the ethnic diversity of UK living kidney donors. Black donors in the UK may be at a much greater risk of developing kidney failure due to accumulated risks: whether these risks are being communicated needs to be investigated.

SUBMITTER: Bailey PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7299046 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Has the UK living kidney donor population changed over time? A cross-sectional descriptive analysis of the UK living donor registry between 2006 and 2017.

Bailey Phillippa K PK Wong Katie K Robb Matthew M Burnapp Lisa L Rogers Alistair A Courtney Aisling A Wroe Caroline C

BMJ open 20200615 6

<h4>Background</h4>A living-donor kidney transplant is the best treatment for most people with kidney failure. Population cohort studies have shown that lifetime living kidney donor risk is modified by sex, age, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity and relationship to the recipient.<h4>Objectives</h4>We investigated whether the UK population of living kidney donors has changed over time, investigating changes in donor demographics.<h4>Design</h4>We undertook a cross-sectional analysis o ...[more]

PMID: 32546487

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) is an aptitude test used since 2006 within selection processes of a consortium of UK medical and dental schools. Since 2006, student numbers have increased in medical training and schools now have an increased focus on widening access. A growing evidence base has emerged around medical student selection (Patterson et al., Med Educ 50:36-60, 2016) leading to changes in practice. However, whilst some papers describe local selection processes, there has been no overview of trends in selection processes over time across Universities. This study reports on how the use of the UKCAT in medical student selection has changed and comments on other changes in selection processes. METHODS:Telephone interviews were conducted annually with UKCAT Consortium medical schools. Use of the UKCAT was categorised and data analysed to identify trends over time. RESULTS:The number of schools using the UKCAT to select applicants for interview has risen, with cognitive test results contributing significantly to outcomes at this stage at many universities. Where schools use different weighted criteria (Factor Method), the UKCAT has largely replaced the use of personal statements. Use of the test at offer stage has also increased; the most significant use being to discriminate between applicants at a decision borderline. A growing number of schools are using the UKCAT Situational Judgement Test (SJT) in selection. In 2018, all but seven (out of 26) schools made some adjustment to selection processes for widening access applicants. Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) are now used by the majority of schools. Whilst medical student numbers have increased over this time, the ratio of applicants to places has fallen. The probability of applicants being invited to interview or receiving an offer has increased. CONCLUSIONS:More medical schools are using the UKCAT in undergraduate selection processes in an increasing number of ways and with increasing weight compared with 2007. It has replaced the use of personal statements in all but a few Consortium medical schools. An increased focus on academic attainment and the UKCAT across medical schools may be leading to the need for schools to interview and make offers to more applicants.

Project description:There is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplantation, but limited evidence as to why. We investigated possible mediators of the inequity.MethodsThis questionnaire-based case-control study included 14 UK hospitals. Participants were adults transplanted between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017. Living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (cases) were compared with deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients (controls). We collected data on mediators identified in earlier qualitative work: perceived social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12), patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13), and LDKT knowledge (Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test). We performed mediation analyses to investigate what proportion of the effect of socioeconomic position (education and income) on case-control status was mediated by these variables.ResultsOne thousand two-hundred and forty questionnaires were returned (40% response). Receipt of an LDKT over a deceased-donor kidney transplant was associated with higher socioeconomic position [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) university degree versus no degree aOR = 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.84), P = 0.001 and aOR per +£1000 increase in monthly household income after tax 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.17), P < 0.001] higher perceived social support (aOR per +1-point Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12 score = 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08), P < 0.001), higher levels of patient activation (aOR per +1 patient activation measure level = 1.35 (95% CI, 1.24-1.48), P < 0.001), and greater LDKT knowledge (aOR per + 1-point Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test score = 1.59 (95% CI, 1.49-1.69), P < 0.001). Mediation analyses revealed that perceived social support, patient activation, and LDKT knowledge together mediate 48.5% (95% CI, 12.7-84.3, P = 0.008) of the association between university education and LDKT status, and 46.0% (95% CI, 28.7-63.4, P < 0.001) of the association between income and LDKT status.ConclusionsLDKT knowledge, perceived social support, and patient activation are associated with the socioeconomic position of people with kidney disease, and mediate approximately 50% of the association between the socioeconomic position and receipt of an LDKT. Interventions that target these factors may redress observed socioeconomic inequity.

Project description:Evaluation of candidates to serve as living kidney donors relies on screening for individual risk factors for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). To support an empirical approach to donor selection, we developed a tool that simultaneously incorporates multiple health characteristics to estimate a person's probable long-term risk of ESRD if that person does not donate a kidney.We used risk associations from a meta-analysis of seven general population cohorts, calibrated to the population-level incidence of ESRD and mortality in the United States, to project the estimated long-term incidence of ESRD among persons who do not donate a kidney, according to 10 demographic and health characteristics. We then compared 15-year projections with the observed risk among 52,998 living kidney donors in the United States.A total of 4,933,314 participants from seven cohorts were followed for a median of 4 to 16 years. For a 40-year-old person with health characteristics that were similar to those of age-matched kidney donors, the 15-year projections of the risk of ESRD in the absence of donation varied according to race and sex; the risk was 0.24% among black men, 0.15% among black women, 0.06% among white men, and 0.04% among white women. Risk projections were higher in the presence of a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher albuminuria, hypertension, current or former smoking, diabetes, and obesity. In the model-based lifetime projections, the risk of ESRD was highest among persons in the youngest age group, particularly among young blacks. The 15-year observed risks after donation among kidney donors in the United States were 3.5 to 5.3 times as high as the projected risks in the absence of donation.Multiple demographic and health characteristics may be used together to estimate the projected long-term risk of ESRD among living kidney-donor candidates and to inform acceptance criteria for kidney donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others.).

Project description:BackgroundThe higher mortality rates in people with severe mental illness (SMI) may be partly due to inadequate integration of physical and mental healthcare. Accurate recording of SMI during hospital admissions has the potential to facilitate integrated care including tailoring of treatment to account for comorbidities. We therefore aimed to investigate the sensitivity of SMI recording within general hospitals, changes in diagnostic accuracy over time, and factors associated with accurate recording.Methods and findingsWe undertook a cohort study of 13,786 adults with SMI diagnosed during 2006-2017, using data from a large secondary mental healthcare database as reference standard, linked to English national records for 45,706 emergency hospital admissions. We examined general hospital record sensitivity across patients' subsequent hospital records, for each subsequent emergency admission, and at different levels of diagnostic precision. We analyzed time trends during the study period and used logistic regression to examine sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with psychiatric recording accuracy, with multiple imputation for missing data. Sensitivity for recording of SMI as any mental health diagnosis was 76.7% (95% CI 76.0-77.4). Category-level sensitivity (e.g., proportion of individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (F20-29) who received any F20-29 diagnosis in hospital records) was 56.4% (95% CI 55.4-57.4) for schizophrenia spectrum disorder and 49.7% (95% CI 48.1-51.3) for bipolar affective disorder. Sensitivity for SMI recording in emergency admissions increased from 47.8% (95% CI 43.1-52.5) in 2006 to 75.4% (95% CI 68.3-81.4) in 2017 (ptrend < 0.001). Minority ethnicity, being married, and having better mental and physical health were associated with less accurate diagnostic recording. The main limitation of our study is the potential for misclassification of diagnosis in the reference-standard mental healthcare data.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that there have been improvements in recording of SMI diagnoses, but concerning under-recording, especially in minority ethnic groups, persists. Training in culturally sensitive diagnosis, expansion of liaison psychiatry input in general hospitals, and improved data sharing between physical and mental health services may be required to reduce inequalities in diagnostic practice.

Project description:There is ethnic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplants in the UK. This study asked kidney patients from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups why members of their family were not able to be living kidney donors. Responses were compared with responses from White individuals. This questionnaire-based mixed-methods study included adults transplanted between 1/4/13-31/3/17 at 14 UK hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate why relatives could not donate, selecting all options applicable from: Age; Health; Weight; Location; Financial/Cost; Job; Blood group; No-one to care for them after donation. A box entitled 'Other-please give details' was provided for free-text entries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse the association between the likelihood of selecting each reason for non-donation and the participant's self-reported ethnicity. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. In total, 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). There was strong evidence that Black, Asian and minority ethnic group individuals were more likely than White people to indicate that family members lived too far away to donate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.30-4.58), were prevented from donating by financial concerns (aOR = 2.95, 95% CI 2.02-4.29), were unable to take time off work (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18-3.02), were "not the right blood group" (aOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.35-2.01), or had no-one to care for them post-donation (aOR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.60-5.35). Four qualitative themes were identified from responses from Black, Asian and minority ethnic group participants: 'Burden of disease within the family'; 'Differing religious interpretations'; 'Geographical concerns'; and 'A culture of silence'. Patients perceive barriers to living kidney donation in the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population. If confirmed, these could be targeted by interventions to redress the observed ethnic inequity.

Dataset Information

Has the UK living kidney donor population changed over time? A cross-sectional descriptive analysis of the UK living donor registry between 2006 and 2017.

Background

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Has the UK living kidney donor population changed over time? A cross-sectional descriptive analysis of the UK living donor registry between 2006 and 2017.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure