NDT Advance Access originally published online on March 5, 2004
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) 19: 1600-1605
Nephrol Dial Transplant Vol. 19 No. 6 © ERA-EDTA 2004; all rights reserved
Original Article
Motives for becoming a living kidney donor
1Department of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, 2Institute of Nursing, the Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, 4Department of Nephrology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden and 3Department of Transplant Surgery, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
Correspondence and offprint requests to: Annette Lennerling, RN, BA, MA, Department of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, S-413 45 Göteborg, Sweden. Email: annette.lennerling{at}vgregion.se
Background. Recruitment of living donors represents a medical and moral responsibility. Their motives are often complex. Categories of motives and factors causing concern were identified from a previous in-depth interview study and from the literature. The aim of the present study was to evaluate these motives.
Methods. A questionnaire was sent to 207 potential kidney donors undergoing evaluation for donation in Norway and Sweden. They were asked to mark on a visual analogue scale, 0–10, the importance given to each of nine motives and five factors of concern. Questions were also asked about who took the initiative and the source of information.
Results. The response rate was 74%; 154 questionnaires were returned. The strongest motives to become a donor were a wish to help (median 9.3), self-benefit from the recipient's improved health (median 9.2) and identification with the recipient (median 9.1). In contrast, a sense of guilt regarding past relationships (median 0.9), pressure from others (median 0.8), a religious motive (median 0.8) and increased self-esteem (median 0.7) were rare or weak incentives for donation. There were large individual variations in the mix, particularly regarding moral duty (5.6, range 0.1–10.0). Most potential donors (64%) had taken the initiative for the assessment themselves, but in 22% it was the recipient's physician. Physicians were the dominant source of information. The potential donors expressed much more concern for the recipient than for themselves.
Conclusions. Living kidney donor assessment includes an exploration of the individuals’ mixed feelings. An analysis of the motive enables individualized treatment and support for non-donors.
Keywords: decision-making process; information; kidney transplantation; living donor; motives; questionnaire
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. P. Reese, J. A. Shea, J. S. Berns, M. K. Simon, M. M. Joffe, R. D. Bloom, and H. I. Feldman Recruitment of Live Donors by Candidates for Kidney Transplantation Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., July 1, 2008; 3(4): 1152 - 1159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. R. Roff Self-interest, self-abnegation and self-esteem: towards a new moral economy of non-directed kidney donation J. Med. Ethics, August 1, 2007; 33(8): 437 - 441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Dahm, M. Weber, B. Muller, F. G. Pradel, G. F. Laube, T. J. Neuhaus, C. Cao, R. P. Wuthrich, G. T. Thiel, and P.-A. Clavien Open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in Switzerland: a retrospective assessment of clinical outcomes and the motivation to donate Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 1, 2006; 21(9): 2563 - 2568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Rodrigue, M. R. Widows, R. Guenther, R. C. Newman, B. Kaplan, and R. J. Howard The expectancies of living kidney donors: do they differ as a function of relational status and gender? Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., June 1, 2006; 21(6): 1682 - 1688. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Oien, A. V. Reisaeter, T. Leivestad, P. Pfeffer, P. Fauchald, and I. Os Gender imbalance among donors in living kidney transplantation: the Norwegian experience Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2005; 20(4): 783 - 789. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|