Living Kidney Donor Priorities for Outcomes: A Nominal Group Technique Study.

C. Hanson,^1,2 J. Kanellis,^3,4 G. Wong,^1,2 J. Pinter,² S. Chadban,^5,6 J. Chapman,⁷ J. Craig,^1,2 J. Gill,⁸ A. Garg,⁹ J. Lewis,^1,2 A. Tong.^1,2

¹Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
²Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
³Department of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
⁴Department of Nephrology, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia
⁵Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
⁶Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
⁷Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
⁸Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
⁹Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, Canada.

Meeting: 2016 American Transplant Congress

Abstract number: C165

Keywords: Donation, Kidney transplantation, Outcome, Psychosocial

Session Information

Session Name: Poster Session C: Kidney Donor Evaluation and Donor Nephrectomy

Session Type: Poster Session

Date: Monday, June 13, 2016

Session Time: 6:00pm-7:00pm

Presentation Time: 6:00pm-7:00pm

Location: Halls C&D

Background: Living kidney donors face risks associated with nephrectomy. While this is justified with informed consent, screening and follow up, the outcomes that are most important to donors are yet to be established. We aimed to identify donor's priorities for outcomes and describe the reasons for their choices.

Methods: Donors were purposively sampled from two Australiantransplant centres. Participants identified important outcomes of kidney donation, ranked the importance of the outcomes, and discussed reasons for their priorities. For each outcome, we calculated a mean rank score from zero (least important) to 10 (most important) and analyzed the transcripts thematically.

Results: Across 8 nominal groups, 67 participants aged 27-78 years identified 32 outcomes. The highest ranked outcomes were: time to recovery (mean rank score 5.39, SD =3.77), family life (5.24, SD = 4.02), donor-recipient relationship (4.25, SD = 4.07), diet and lifestyle restrictions (3.90, SD = 3.55), and kidney function (3.76, SD = 3.50). Kidney failure and mortality ranked 10^th and 13^th respectively. Women ranked donor-recipient relationship, life satisfaction, and family life higher than men; whilst men ranked kidney failure, physical function, mortality and kidney function higher. The themes underpinning participants' priorities included: concern for recipient wellbeing, undeterred by low risks, heightened susceptibility and unfulfilled expectations.

Conclusions: Donors prioritised outcomes that could potentially disrupt their lifestyle and relationships, were unexpected, or threatened their health. Assessment and follow-up should address expectations regarding recovery time, relationship changes and lifestyle restrictions; and donors may feel empowered with advice to prevent health problems.

CITATION INFORMATION: Hanson C, Kanellis J, Wong G, Pinter J, Chadban S, Chapman J, Craig J, Gill J, Garg A, Lewis J, Tong A. Living Kidney Donor Priorities for Outcomes: A Nominal Group Technique Study. Am J Transplant. 2016;16 (suppl 3).

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Hanson C, Kanellis J, Wong G, Pinter J, Chadban S, Chapman J, Craig J, Gill J, Garg A, Lewis J, Tong A. Living Kidney Donor Priorities for Outcomes: A Nominal Group Technique Study. [abstract]. Am J Transplant. 2016; 16 (suppl 3). https://atcmeetingabstracts.com/abstract/living-kidney-donor-priorities-for-outcomes-a-nominal-group-technique-study/. Accessed July 5, 2025.

« Back to 2016 American Transplant Congress