Barriers to and outcomes of unspecified kidney donation in the UK: BOUnD, a mixed-methods study.

Nizam Mamode, Sam Norton, Paul McCrone, Joe Chilcot, Heather Draper, Peter Gogalniceanu, Mira Zuchowski, Lisa Burnapp, Jan Shorrock, Kiran Gupta, Hannah Maple
{"title":"Barriers to and outcomes of unspecified kidney donation in the UK: BOUnD, a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Nizam Mamode, Sam Norton, Paul McCrone, Joe Chilcot, Heather Draper, Peter Gogalniceanu, Mira Zuchowski, Lisa Burnapp, Jan Shorrock, Kiran Gupta, Hannah Maple","doi":"10.3310/RTEW9328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unspecified living kidney donation, where an individual donates a kidney to a stranger, is practised in very few countries. Since the Human Tissue Act 2006, the practice has been increasingly prevalent in the United Kingdom. However, evidence exists of uncertainty from healthcare professionals as to whether this is appropriate or manageable.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation study is a mixed-methods study designed to determine the answers to three research questions: Is there variation in transplant professionals' practice and attitudes, which is preventing some unspecified donations? Are psychosocial and physical outcomes after unspecified donation equivalent to those after specified donation? What is the economic benefit from unspecified donation?</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>For RQ1, a qualitative study of healthcare professionals using focus groups and interviews was performed. Additionally, a quantitative, questionnaire-based study, including healthcare professionals from all United Kingdom transplant centres, was carried out. For RQ2, a qualitative study of unspecified kidney donors, including those who did not donate, was performed. A prospective, questionnaire study of both specified kidney donors and unspecified kidney donors across the United Kingdom was completed, and linked to data recorded by National Health Service Blood and Transplant. For RQ3, data on utilisation and quality of life were collected pre- and postoperatively using health economic and quality-of-life questionnaires to allow calculation of costs and comparisons between unspecified kidney donors and specified kidney donors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-nine interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals at six United Kingdom centres. There was broad support for unspecified donation, but key themes included the need for further training and information, consistency in approach across the United Kingdom, and uncertainty about age limits and psychological assessments. Managing donor expectations was a major concern. One hundred and fifty-three healthcare professionals, from all 23 United Kingdom transplant units, were recruited into the questionnaire study. The themes above were confirmed, and the need for more resource, particularly training and staffing, were emphasised.</p><p><strong>Rq2: </strong>Eight hundred and thirty-seven participants including (59.3%) specified kidney donors and (40.7%) unspecified kidney donors were recruited to the prospective questionnaire study, of whom 373 went on to donate. We found no difference in psychosocial or physical outcomes, withdrawal rates [hazard ratio: unspecified kidney donors vs. specified kidney donors 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.67)] or regret, although unspecified kidney donors experienced fewer positive perceptions [specified kidney donors 319 (86.2%) vs. unspecified kidney donors 247 (79.9%); <i>p</i> = 0.034]. In the qualitative study of 35 unspecified kidney donors (15 donated, 20 withdrawn), we found evidence of psychological distress in those not proceeding to donation, with a need for consistency and management of expectations. Data from the RQ2 prospective study showed a wide variation in withdrawal rates of donors across the United Kingdom, with withdrawal less likely in high volume, well-staffed centres. Fifty-eight per cent of unspecified kidney donors came from just five centres.</p><p><strong>Rq3: </strong>We found no difference in costs between the two groups (£937 vs. £778; ns). We calculated that a 10% increase in unspecified kidney donors nationally would save at least £5 million.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that unspecified donation is a safe and acceptable practice. Training and information should be disseminated across United Kingdom centres, with increased resource for unspecified donation where necessary. Consistency in approach and support for donors who do not proceed is important.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/54/54.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 20","pages":"1-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/RTEW9328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Unspecified living kidney donation, where an individual donates a kidney to a stranger, is practised in very few countries. Since the Human Tissue Act 2006, the practice has been increasingly prevalent in the United Kingdom. However, evidence exists of uncertainty from healthcare professionals as to whether this is appropriate or manageable.

Objectives: The Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation study is a mixed-methods study designed to determine the answers to three research questions: Is there variation in transplant professionals' practice and attitudes, which is preventing some unspecified donations? Are psychosocial and physical outcomes after unspecified donation equivalent to those after specified donation? What is the economic benefit from unspecified donation?

Design: For RQ1, a qualitative study of healthcare professionals using focus groups and interviews was performed. Additionally, a quantitative, questionnaire-based study, including healthcare professionals from all United Kingdom transplant centres, was carried out. For RQ2, a qualitative study of unspecified kidney donors, including those who did not donate, was performed. A prospective, questionnaire study of both specified kidney donors and unspecified kidney donors across the United Kingdom was completed, and linked to data recorded by National Health Service Blood and Transplant. For RQ3, data on utilisation and quality of life were collected pre- and postoperatively using health economic and quality-of-life questionnaires to allow calculation of costs and comparisons between unspecified kidney donors and specified kidney donors.

Results: Fifty-nine interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals at six United Kingdom centres. There was broad support for unspecified donation, but key themes included the need for further training and information, consistency in approach across the United Kingdom, and uncertainty about age limits and psychological assessments. Managing donor expectations was a major concern. One hundred and fifty-three healthcare professionals, from all 23 United Kingdom transplant units, were recruited into the questionnaire study. The themes above were confirmed, and the need for more resource, particularly training and staffing, were emphasised.

Rq2: Eight hundred and thirty-seven participants including (59.3%) specified kidney donors and (40.7%) unspecified kidney donors were recruited to the prospective questionnaire study, of whom 373 went on to donate. We found no difference in psychosocial or physical outcomes, withdrawal rates [hazard ratio: unspecified kidney donors vs. specified kidney donors 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.67)] or regret, although unspecified kidney donors experienced fewer positive perceptions [specified kidney donors 319 (86.2%) vs. unspecified kidney donors 247 (79.9%); p = 0.034]. In the qualitative study of 35 unspecified kidney donors (15 donated, 20 withdrawn), we found evidence of psychological distress in those not proceeding to donation, with a need for consistency and management of expectations. Data from the RQ2 prospective study showed a wide variation in withdrawal rates of donors across the United Kingdom, with withdrawal less likely in high volume, well-staffed centres. Fifty-eight per cent of unspecified kidney donors came from just five centres.

Rq3: We found no difference in costs between the two groups (£937 vs. £778; ns). We calculated that a 10% increase in unspecified kidney donors nationally would save at least £5 million.

Conclusions: This study suggests that unspecified donation is a safe and acceptable practice. Training and information should be disseminated across United Kingdom centres, with increased resource for unspecified donation where necessary. Consistency in approach and support for donors who do not proceed is important.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/54/54.

英国未指定肾脏捐赠的障碍和结果:BOUnD,一项混合方法研究。
背景:未指定活体肾脏捐赠,即个人向陌生人捐赠肾脏,在极少数国家实行。自2006年《人体组织法》颁布以来,这种做法在英国越来越普遍。然而,有证据表明,医疗保健专业人员不确定这是否适当或可管理。目的:“未指定捐赠的障碍和结果”研究是一项混合方法研究,旨在确定三个研究问题的答案:移植专业人员的实践和态度是否存在差异,从而阻止了一些未指定的捐赠?未指定捐赠后的社会心理和生理结果是否等同于指定捐赠后的结果?未指定捐赠的经济效益是什么?设计:对于RQ1,使用焦点小组和访谈对医疗保健专业人员进行了定性研究。此外,还进行了一项基于问卷的定量研究,包括来自联合王国所有移植中心的保健专业人员。对于RQ2,对未指定的肾脏捐赠者进行了定性研究,包括那些没有捐赠的人。一项针对全英国指定肾脏捐献者和未指定肾脏捐献者的前瞻性问卷研究完成,并与国家卫生服务血液和移植记录的数据相关联。对于RQ3,使用健康经济和生活质量问卷收集术前和术后的利用率和生活质量数据,以便计算成本并比较未指定肾脏供者和指定肾脏供者之间的差异。结果:对英国六个中心的医疗保健专业人员进行了59次访谈。对未指明的捐赠有广泛的支持,但关键的主题包括需要进一步的培训和信息,英国各地方法的一致性,以及年龄限制和心理评估的不确定性。管理捐助者的期望是一个主要问题。153名来自英国所有23个移植单位的医疗保健专业人员被招募到问卷研究中。会议确认了上述主题,并强调需要更多的资源,特别是培训和工作人员。Rq2: 837名参与者,包括(59.3%)指定的肾脏捐赠者和(40.7%)未指定的肾脏捐赠者,被招募到前瞻性问卷研究中,其中373人继续捐赠。我们没有发现社会心理或身体结局、退出率[危险比:未指定肾供者vs.指定肾供者1.12(95%置信区间0.75至1.67)]或遗憾的差异,尽管未指定肾供者的积极认知较少[指定肾供者319人(86.2%)vs.未指定肾供者247人(79.9%);p = 0.034]。在对35名未指定的肾脏捐赠者(15名捐赠,20名退出)的定性研究中,我们发现了不进行捐赠的人存在心理困扰的证据,需要一致性和期望管理。RQ2前瞻性研究的数据显示,在英国各地,献血者的退出率差异很大,在高容量、人手充足的中心,退出的可能性较小。58%未指明的肾脏捐赠者仅来自5个中心。Rq3:我们发现两组之间的成本没有差异(937英镑vs 778英镑;ns)。我们计算出,在全国范围内增加10%的未指明的肾脏捐献者将节省至少500万英镑。结论:本研究提示未指定捐赠是一种安全且可接受的做法。应在联合王国各中心传播培训和信息,并在必要时增加用于未指明捐赠的资源。对于不采取行动的捐助方,方针和支持的一致性是很重要的。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究方案资助的独立研究,奖励号为13/54/54。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信