Living kidney donation among ethnic minorities: A Dutch qualitative study on attitudes, communication, knowledge and needs of kidney patients

Background: Terminal kidney patients are faced with lower quality of life during dialysis treatment, restricted diets and high morbidity and mortality rates while waiting for a deceased donor kidney transplantation. Fortunately, living donor kidney transplantation offers an alternative with considerable advantages in terms of waiting time and graft survival rates. Nevertheless, we observed an inequality in the proportion of living kidney transplantations performed between the non-European patients and the European patients in our centre. To date little is known about the factors contributing towards this racial disparity. Previous research from our centre did not find any medical reasons to explain this racial disparity. We believe that non-medical psychosocial and cultural factors predominantly account for this discrepancy. Purpose Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were conducted in order to gain insight in the attitudes, (non-)communication and knowledge of our non-European patients (compared to European patients) regarding living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Additionally, we investigated their attitudes towards professional support in finding an eligible living donor. Methods: The interviews were held in line with the focus group method and analyzed according to the grounded theory. The interviews were focused on six main topics (kidney transplantation, living kidney donation, communication, information, knowledge and intervention needs). European patients were included as a comparison group. The qualitative data analyses were performed in Atlas.ti. Results:We found nearly all our patient to be in favour of a living kidney transplantation (96%). However multiple prohibiting intertwined factors play a role when actually considering a living donor. We found four major barriers to the living donor transplantation process in our non-European patients: 1) not (so easily) comprehensible non-patient-centered information 2) cognitions and emotions (based on fears, concerns and misconceptions) 3) a state of basically non-communication with the potential donor(s) on this issue (as a consequence of personal and cultural beliefs) 4) and social influences. We also found some similar factors playing a role in the donation course of our European patients without a living donor. Finally, our patients held a welcoming attitude towards an intervention aimed at assisting them getting though the living donation program. Discussion: This study has identified several modifiable determinants underlying racial disparity in our living donor kidney transplantation program and investigated patients’ attitude towards two interventions aimed at alleviating this inequality. We realize that our list of barriers may not be thorough enough and surely more is to be said on this topic, the findings offer possible targets for intervention. In accordance with our patients’ preference, we argue that a home-based educatio

Multisystemic engagement & nephrology based educational intervention: A randomized controlled trial protocol on the kidney team at home-study

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the most successful form of renal replacement therapy in terms of wait time and survival rates. However, we observed a significant inequality in the number of LDKT performed between the Dutch and the non-Dutch patients. The objective of this study is to adapt, implement and test an educational home-based intervention to contribute to the reduction of this inequality. Our aim is to establish this through guided communication together with the social network of the patients in an attempt that well-informed decisions regarding renal replacement therapy can be made: Multisystemic Engagement & Nephrology. This manuscript is a detailed description of the Kidney Team At Home-study protocol. Methods and design. All patients (>18 yrs) that are referred to the pre-transplantation outpatient clinic are eligible to participate in the study. Patients will be randomly assigned to either an experimental or a control group. The control group will continue to receive standard care. The experimental group will receive standard care plus a home-based educational intervention. The intervention consists of two sessions at the patient's home, an initial session with the patient and a second session for which individuals from their social network are invited to take part. Based on the literature and behavioural change theories we hypothesize that reducing hurdles in knowledge, risk perception, subjective norm, self-efficacy, and communication contribute to well-informed decision making and reducing inequality in accessing LDKT programs. A change in these factors is consequently our primary outcome-measure. Based on power calculations, we aim to include 160 patients over a period of two years. Discussion. If we are able to show that this home-based group educational intervention contributes to 1) achieving well-informed decision regarding treatment and 2) reducing the inequality in LDKT, the quality of life of patients will be improved while healthcare costs are reduced. As the intervention is investigated in a random heterogeneous patient group in daily practice, the transfer to clinical practice in other kidney transplant centers should be relatively easy

Exploring Knowledge About Dialysis, Transplantation, and Living Donation Among Patients and Their Living Kidney Donors

Background: In order to make a well-considered decision and give informed consent about renal replacement therapy, potential living kidney donors and recipients should have sufficient understanding of the options and risks. Purpose: We aimed to explore knowledge about Dialysis & Transplantation (DT) and Living Donation (LD) among prospective living kidney donors and recipients. Methods: Eighty-five donors and 81 recipients completed the Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge-Test (R3K-T) 1 day before surgery. The questionnaire was available in various languages. Results: Recipients knew significantly more about DT than donors (p < 0.001); donors knew more about LD than recipients (p < 0.001). A minority of donors (15 %) and recipients (17 %) had a score that was comparable to the knowledge level of the naïve general population. Recipients and donors knew less about DT and LD if their native language was not Dutch. In addition, recipients knew less about DT if they were undergoing pre-emptive transplantation. Conclusions: We conclude that recipients and donors retain different information. The decision to undergo living donation appears to be not always based on full knowledge of the risks. We recommend that professionals assess knowledge of prospective donors and recipients during the education process using the R3K-T, and extra attention is required for non-native speakers

Development of the Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge-Test (R3K-T)

Introduction: There is currently a lack of validated or standardized measures to test the level of knowledge among renal patients regarding kidney disease and available treatment options. We conducted a pilot study to develop a questionnaire measuring knowledge of kidney disease, dialysis and transplantation options. The main aim of this study was to develop such an instrument for further use in research and practice. Method: An initial 61 item pool was generating by searching the literature and consulting experts in this area for additional items. This questionnaire was completed by 182 renal disease patients from 4 dialysis centers in the Rotterdam municipality. A factor analysis was conducted using the maximum likelihood factor method followed by direct oblimin rotation to obtain variance explained by each factor. Questions that loaded ≥ .30 on a factor were included. Results: Twenty-seven patients (24%) were in the pre-RRT phase, 60 (54%) were undergoing haemodialysis, 16 (14%) were undergoing peritoneal dialysis, and 9 (8%) had a graft failure. Forty (36%) were female and 72 (64%) were male. Age range 19-87 (median = 59). A factor analys

Factors influencing access to kidney transplantation: a research protocol of a qualitative study on stakeholders' perspectives

INTRODUCTION: Unequal access to kidney transplantation is suggested, but no systematic inventory exists about factors influencing access to kidney transplantation. There is an absence of any research that has combined stakeholder perspectives along the complete trajectory of transplantation. The present qualitative study explores the contributing factors from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in this trajectory, including patients, health professionals and health insurance and financial representatives in the Netherlands. Moreover, stakeholders will be invited to suggesting strategies and solutions for handling the facilitating and hindering factors found. By means of interaction, stakeholder groups will arrive at a consensus for new policymaking in the field of a Dutch transplantation care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The different stakeholders' perspectives and possible solutions will be explored by interviewing in three phases. In the first phase, stakeholders' group perspectives will be explored with individual interviews and focus group interviews without confrontation of views from other perspectives. In the second phase of focus group interviewing, perspectives will be confronted with the other stakeholders' perspectives assessed. Finally, in the third phase, stakeholders will be invited to focus group discussions for suggesting solutions to overcome barriers and promote facilitators for improving access to transplantation. Approximately, groups from six to twelve participants per focus group and four to maximal six focus groups will be held per stakeholder, depending on the level of saturation, as prescribed by grounded theory. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and qualitative data will be analysed according to the principles of grounded theory supported by using NVivo software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, has approved this study. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and major international conferences