Nephrologists' Perspectives on Recipient Eligibility and Access to Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

被引:21
作者
Hanson, Camilla S. [1 ,2 ]
Chadban, Steven J. [3 ]
Chapman, Jeremy R. [4 ]
Craig, Jonathan C. [1 ,2 ]
Wong, Germaine [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Tong, Allison [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sydney Sch Publ Hlth, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[2] Childrens Hosp, Ctr Kidney Res, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hosp, Dept Renal Med, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[4] Westmead Hosp, Ctr Transplant & Renal Res, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; UNITED-STATES; RENAL-TRANSPLANTATION; RACIAL DISPARITIES; SOCIOECONOMIC-STATUS; HEALTH-CARE; BARRIERS; DONATION; WILLINGNESS; CANDIDATES;
D O I
10.1097/TP.0000000000000921
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background. Wide variations in access to living kidney donation are apparent across transplant centers. Such disparities may be in part explained by nephrologists' beliefs and decisions about recipient eligibility. This study aims to describe nephrologists' attitudes towards recipient eligibility and access to living kidney donor transplantation. Methods. Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted from June to October 2013 with 41 nephrologists from Australia and New Zealand. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results. We identified five major themes: championing optimal recipient outcomes (maximizing recipient survival, increasing opportunity, accepting justified risks, needing control and certainty of outcomes, safeguarding psychological wellbeing), justifying donor sacrifice (confidence in reasonable utility, sparing the donor, ensuring reciprocal donor benefit), advocating for patients (being proactive and encouraging, addressing ambivalence, depending on supportive infrastructure, avoiding selective recommendations), maintaining professional boundaries (minimizing conflict of interest, respecting shared decision-making, emphasizing patient accountability, restricted decisional power, protecting unit interests), and entrenched inequities (exclusivity of living donors, inherently advantaging self-advocates, navigating language barriers, increasing center transparency, inevitable geographical disadvantage, understanding cultural barriers). Conclusions. Nephrologists' decisions about recipient suitability for living donor transplantation aimed to achieve optimal recipient outcomes, but were constrained by competing priorities to ensure reasonable utility derived from the donor kidney and protect the integrity of the transplant program. Comprehensive guidelines that provide explicit recommendations for complex medical and psychosocial risk factors might promote more equitable and transparent decision-making. Psychosocial support and culturally sensitive educational resources are needed to help nephrologists advocate for disadvantaged patients and address disparities in access to living kidney donor transplantation.
引用
收藏
页码:943 / 953
页数:11
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]   The use of psychosocial criteria in Australian patient selection guidelines for kidney transplantation [J].
Anderson, Kate ;
Cass, Alan ;
Cunningham, Joan ;
Snelling, Paul ;
Devitt, Jeannie ;
Preece, Cilla .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2007, 64 (10) :2107-2114
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research
[3]  
ANZDATA, 2013, 35 ANZDATA
[4]   Balancing Accountable Care With Risk Aversion: Transplantation as a Model [J].
Axelrod, D. A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2013, 13 (01) :7-8
[5]   Accountability for end-stage organ care: Implications of geographic variation in access to kidney transplantation [J].
Axelrod, David A. ;
Lentine, Krista L. ;
Xiao, Huiling ;
Bubolz, Thomas ;
Goodman, David ;
Freeman, Richard ;
Tuttle-Newhall, Janet E. ;
Schnitzler, Mark A. .
SURGERY, 2014, 155 (05) :734-742
[6]   The Interplay of Socioeconomic Status, Distance to Center, and Interdonor Service Area Travel on Kidney Transplant Access and Outcomes [J].
Axelrod, David A. ;
Dzebisashvili, Nino ;
Schnitzler, Mark A. ;
Salvalaggio, Paolo R. ;
Segev, Dorry L. ;
Gentry, Sommer E. ;
Tuttle-Newhall, Janet ;
Lentine, Krista L. .
CLINICAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2010, 5 (12) :2276-2288
[7]   Physicians' beliefs about racial differences in referral for renal transplantation [J].
Ayanian, JZ ;
Cleary, PD ;
Keogh, JH ;
Noonan, SJ ;
David-Kasdan, JA ;
Epstein, AM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES, 2004, 43 (02) :350-357
[8]   Effectiveness of Educational and Social Worker Interventions to Activate Patients' Discussion and Pursuit of Preemptive Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized Controlled Trial [J].
Boulware, L. Ebony ;
Hill-Briggs, Felicia ;
Kraus, Edward S. ;
Melancon, J. Keith ;
Falcone, Brenda ;
Ephraim, Patti L. ;
Jaar, Bernard G. ;
Gimenez, Luis ;
Choi, Michael ;
Senga, Mikiko ;
Kolotos, Maria ;
Lewis-Boyer, LaPricia ;
Cook, Courtney ;
Light, Laney ;
DePasquale, Nicole ;
Noletto, Todd ;
Powe, Neil R. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES, 2013, 61 (03) :476-486
[9]   Grappling with cultural differences; Communication between oncologists and immigrant cancer patients with and without interpreters [J].
Butow, Phyllis ;
Bell, Melanie ;
Goldstein, David ;
Sze, Ming ;
Aldridge, Lynley ;
Abdo, Sarah ;
Mikhail, Michelle ;
Dong, Skye ;
Iedema, Rick ;
Ashgari, Ray ;
Hui, Rina ;
Eisenbruch, Maurice .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2011, 84 (03) :398-405
[10]   Access to kidney transplantation in Australia: does equal mean equitable? [J].
Caskey, Fergus J. ;
Ravanan, Rommel .
KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 83 (01) :18-20