Self-advocacy is associated with lower likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation
The Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program pairs kidney transplant candidates (TC) with a friend or family member for advocacy training to help identify donors and achieve living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). However, some TCs participate alone as self-advocates. In this retrospective cohort st...
Saved in:
Published in | The American journal of surgery Vol. 222; no. 1; pp. 36 - 41 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Elsevier Inc
01.07.2021
Elsevier Limited |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | The Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program pairs kidney transplant candidates (TC) with a friend or family member for advocacy training to help identify donors and achieve living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). However, some TCs participate alone as self-advocates.
In this retrospective cohort study of TCs in the LDN program (04/2017-06/2019), we evaluated the likelihood of LDKT using Cox proportional hazards regression and rate of donor screenings using ordered events conditional models by advocate type.
Self-advocates (25/127) had lower likelihood of LDKT compared to patients with an advocate (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03–1.66, p = 0.14). After LDN enrollment, rate of donor screenings increased 2.5-fold for self-advocates (aHR: 2.48, 95%CI: 1.26–4.90, p = 0.009) and 3.4-fold for TCs with an advocate (aHR: 3.39, 95%CI: 2.20–5.24, p < 0.0001).
Advocacy training was beneficial for self-advocates, but having an independent advocate may increase the likelihood of LDKT.
[Display omitted]
•Self-advocates were primarily female, Black, and unmarried.•Self-advocates had lower likelihood of LDKT compared to patients with an advocate.•Having a spouse/significant other advocate was significantly associated with LDKT.•LDN enrollment significantly increased donor screenings for both advocate types. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Haiyan Qu PhD: hyqu@uab.edu; data interpretation and revision of the paper. Robert M. Cannon MD: rmcannon@uabmc.edu; data acquisition, data interpretation and revision of the paper. Author Email Addresses and Contributions Jayme E. Locke MD, MPH, FACS, FAST: jlocke@uabmc.edu; study conception and design, data acquisition, data interpretation and revision of the paper. Paul A. MacLennan PhD: pmaclennan@uabmc.edu; data interpretation and revision of the paper. Rhiannon D. Reed DrPH, MPH: rdeierhoi@uabmc.edu; study design, data interpretation and revision of the manuscript. Michael J. Hanaway MD: mhanaway@uabmc.edu; data acquisition, data interpretation and revision of the paper. M. Chandler McLeod PhD: marshallcmcleod@uabmc.edu; study design, data analysis, data interpretation, writing and revision of the paper. Babak J. Orandi MD, PhD: borandi@uabmc.edu; data acquisition, data interpretation and revision of the paper. All authors approved this manuscript and agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the study per the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ recommendations. Brittany A. Shelton MPH: brittanyshelton@uabmc.edu; data interpretation and revision of the paper. A. Cozette Killian MD, MPH: akale@uabmc.edu; study conception and design, data acquisition, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the paper. Vineeta Kumar MD: vkumar@uabmc.edu; data acquisition, data interpretation and revision of the paper. Alexis Carter BS: alexiscarter@uabmc.edu; data interpretation and revision of the paper. Douglas Anderson MD: douglasanderson@uabmc.edu; data acquisition, data interpretation and revision of the paper. |
ISSN: | 0002-9610 1879-1883 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.035 |