The ELPAT Living Organ Donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT): from 'What' to 'How' of Psychosocial Screening - a Pilot Study

Thorough psychosocial screening of donor candidates is required in order to minimize potential negative consequences and to strive for optimal safety within living donation programmes. We aimed to develop an evidence-based tool to standardize the psychosocial screening process. Key concepts of psychosocial screening were used to structure our tool: motivation and decision-making, personal resources, psychopathology, social resources, ethical and legal factors and information and risk processing. We (i) discussed how each item per concept could be measured, (ii) reviewed and rated available validated tools, (iii) where necessary developed new items, (iv) assessed content validity and (v) pilot-tested the new items. The resulting ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT) consists of a selection of validated questionnaires (28 items in total), a semi-structured interview (43 questions) and a Red Flag Checklist. We outline optimal procedures and conditions for implementing this tool. The EPAT and user manual are available from the authors. Use of this tool will standardize the psychosocial screening procedure ensuring that no psychosocial issues are overlooked and ensure that comparable selection criteria are used and facilitate generation of comparable psychosocial data on living donor candidates.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

An ELPAT definition of the concept ‘Psychosocial’ in the context of Screening Living Organ Donors in Europe: A Concept Mapping approach

Introduction: Across Europe, transplant centers vary in the set of psychosocial screening criteria/guidelines used for the selection of eligible living donors. Our aim was to explore whether a common framework underlies this variation in screening criteria and, based on this framework, to develop a consensus on the essential elements of psychosocial screening of living liver and kidney donors. In order to do so, a research question was set out to define a conceptual framework of the concept ‘Psychosocial’ in the context of screening living organ donors in Europe. We formulated the following research question: Which psychosocial screening criteria are most commonly reported and considered as most important or effective in selecting eligible kidney and liver donors? Method: Concept mapping methodology was used to create a visual representation of the complex topic ‘Psychosocial’ in the context of screening living organ donors in Europe, in which underlying concepts, the relative importance of these concepts and the interplay between different concepts are organized. Initial psychosocial screening criteria (N=83) were derived from an extensive systematic literature review on guidelines, protocols and consensus statements on psychosocial screening practices, complemented by group brainstorm sessions. These criteria were then sorted and rated for their importance and effectiveness by 26 project participants. The data were analyzed using the Concept System Core© Software, which provided us with graphical depictions (concept maps) illustrating the view of project participants on these screening criteria. Pattern Matches and Go-Zones showed us the highlycommon, important and effective criteria. Results: The concept map procedure resulted in six clusters of psychosocial screening criteria: (1) Motivation and decision making (2) Personal resources (3) Psychopathology (4) Social resources (5) Ethical and Legal factors (6) Information and risk processing. Bivariate rating of these criteria revealed which important criteria are already frequently used for screening and which require more attention. Based on the cluster map and bivariate ratings we constructed a conceptual framework for non-medical risk factors that need to be considered when screening potential living organ donors. Conclusion: We provided a conceptual framework of psychosocial screening criteria which can serve as a practical recommendation for the psychosocial screening of potential living organ donors

Improving Diversity, Inclusion, and Representation in Radiology and Radiation Oncology Part 1: Why These Matter

The ACR Commission for Women and General Diversity is committed to identifying barriers to a diverse physician workforce in radiology and radiation oncology (RRO), and to offering policy recommendations to overcome these barriers. In Part 1 of a 2-part position article from the commission, diversity as a concept and its dimensions of personality, character, ethnicity, biology, biography, and organization are introduced. Terms commonly used to describe diverse individuals and groups are reviewed. The history of diversity and inclusion in US society and health care are addressed. The post–Civil Rights Era evolution of diversity in medicine is delineated: Diversity 1.0, with basic awareness, nondiscrimination, and recruitment; Diversity 2.0, with appreciation of the value of diversity but inclusion as peripheral or in opposition to other goals; and Diversity 3.0, which integrates diversity and inclusion into core missions of organizations and their leadership, and leverages its potential for innovation and contribution. The current states of diversity and inclusion in RRO are reviewed in regard to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The lack of representation and unchanged demographics in these fields relative to other medical specialties are explored. The business case for diversity is discussed, with examples of successful models and potential application to the health care industry in general and to RRO. The moral, ethical, and public health imperative for diversity is also highlighted

Predonation psychosocial evaluation of living kidney and liver donor candidates: a systematic literature review

Evaluating a person's suitability for living organ donation is crucial, consisting not only of a medical but also of a thorough psychosocial screening. We performed a systematic literature review of guidelines, consensus statements, and protocols on the content and process of psychosocial screening of living kidney and liver donor candidates. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until June 22, 2011, following the PRISMA guidelines, complemented by scrutinizing guidelines databases and references of identified publications. Thirty-four publications were identified, including seven guidelines, six consensus statements, and 21 protocols or programs. Guidelines and consensus statements were inconsistent and lacked concreteness for both their content and process, possibly explaining the observed variability in center-specific evaluation protocols and programs. Overall, recommended screening criteria are not evidence-based and an operational definition of the concept psychosocial is missing, causing heterogeneity in terminology. Variation also exists on methods used to psychosocially evaluate potential donors. The scientific basis of predonation psychosocial evaluation needs to be strengthened. There is a need for high-quality prospective psychosocial outcome studies in living donors, a uniform terminology to label psychosocial screening criteria, and validated instruments to identify risk factors

Toward a Conceptualization of the Content of Psychosocial Screening in Living Organ Donors: An Ethical Legal Psychological Aspects of Transplantation Consensus

Background. Across Europe, transplant centers vary in the content of the psychosocial evaluation for eligible living organ donors. To identify whether a common framework underlies this variation in this evaluation, we studied which psychosocial screening items are most commonly used and considered as most important in current psychosocial screening programs of living organ donors. Methods. A multivariate analytic method, concept mapping, was used to generate a visual representation of the "psychosocial" screening items of living kidney and liver donors. A list of 75 potential screening items was derived from a systematic literature review and sorted and rated for their importance and commonness by multidisciplinary affiliated health care professionals from across Europe. Results were discussed and fine-tuned during a consensus meeting. Results. The analyses resulted in a 6-cluster solution. The following clusters on psychosocial screening items were identified, listed from most to least important: (1) personal resources, (2) motivation and decision making, (3) psychopathology, (4) social resources, (5) ethical and legal factors, and (6) information and risk processing. Conclusions. We provided a conceptual framework of the essential elements in psychosocial evaluation of living donors which can serve as a uniform basis for the selection of relevant psychosocial evaluation tools, which can be further tested in prospective studies