Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access first published online on February 16, 2006
This version published online on February 22, 2006
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl024
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/6/1682    most recent
gfl024v2
gfl024v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rodrigue, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Howard, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rodrigue, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Howard, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received November 7, 2005
Accepted January 18, 2006

Original Article

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

James R. Rodrigue 1 *, Michelle R. Widows 2, Robert Guenther 3, Robert C. Newman 4, Bruce Kaplan 5, and Richard J. Howard 6

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, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
4 Department of Urology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
5 Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
6 Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
James R. Rodrigue, E-mail: jrrodrig{at}bidmc.harvard.edu



  Abstract

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.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.