The expectancies of living kidney donors: do they differ as a function of relational status and gender?

• Published in: Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation Vol. 21; no. 6; pp. 1682 - 1688
• Main Authors: Rodrigue, James R., Widows, Michelle R., Guenther, Robert, Newman, Robert C., Kaplan, Bruce, Howard, Richard J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01.06.2006; Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
• Subjects: Adult; Analysis of Variance; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Attitude to Health; Biological and medical sciences; donor expectancies; Emergency and intensive care: renal failure. Dialysis management; Family; Female; Humans; Intensive care medicine; Kidney Transplantation - psychology; Kidneys; living donation; Living Donors - psychology; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases; organ donation; Personal Satisfaction; Sex Factors; Spirituality; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Surgery of the urinary system; Surveys and Questionnaires; Tissue Donors - psychology; Tumors of the urinary system; Kidney disease; Extrarenal dialysis; Organ donation; Urinary system disease; Hemodialysis; Living donor; Renal failure; donor expectancies; living donation
• ISSN: 0931-0509; 1460-2385
• DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfl024

Background. While two-thirds of the living kidney donors continue to be genetically related to the recipient, there has been a 300% increase in unrelated living donors over the last 10 years. Also, women continue to represent more than half of all the living kidney donors. This study examined whether donor expectancies varied as a function of relational status or gender. Methods. 362 kidney donor candidates (232 related, 130 unrelated) completed the Living Donation Expectancies Questionnaire (LDEQ). A 2 (relational status: related or unrelated) × 2 (gender: male or female) multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to examine main and interaction effects across the six domains of the LDEQ: interpersonal benefit (IB), personal growth (PG), spiritual benefit (SB), quid pro quo (QPQ), health consequences (HC) and miscellaneous consequences (MC). Results. The highest expectancies were for PG (54.1%) and IB (29.8%), followed by expectations of MC (18.2%), SB (16.9%), HC (14.4%), and QPQ (4.4%). Multivariate analyses showed a relational main effect [F = 4.18, P = 0.02] and a gender main effect [F = 5.09, P = 0.01]. Subsequent univariate analyses showed significant effects (P<0.05) for IB (related>unrelated), QPQ (men>women), HC (unrelated>related, men > women) and MC (unrelated > related). Conclusion. Overall, donor candidate expectancies appear to be realistic in light of previous findings of donor benefit. However, some living donor expectancies may vary as a function of donor relational status and gender. It may be important to assess and appropriately address both positive and negative expectancies at the time of donor evaluation. The LDEQ may be a useful clinical tool for assessing such expectancies.