NDT Advance Access originally published online on February 16, 2006
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2006 21(6):1682-1688; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Original Articles: Dialysis and Transplantation
The expectancies of living kidney donors: do they differ as a function of relational status and gender?
1 The Transplant Center and the Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, 2 Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., Tampa, FL, 3 Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, 4 Department of Urology, 5 Department of Medicine and 6 Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Correspondence and offprint requests to: James R. Rodrigue, PhD, The Transplant Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 110 Francis Street, LMOB-Suite 7, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Email: jrrodrig{at}bidmc.harvard.edu
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) x 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.
Keywords: donor expectancies; living donation; organ donation