肾移植寻找活体供体决策的横断面社会网络分析

IF 3.4 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Briana E. Lee , Heather M. Gardiner , Crystal A. Gadegbeku , Peter P. Reese , Zoran Obradovic , Edward L. Fink , Avrum Gillespie
{"title":"肾移植寻找活体供体决策的横断面社会网络分析","authors":"Briana E. Lee ,&nbsp;Heather M. Gardiner ,&nbsp;Crystal A. Gadegbeku ,&nbsp;Peter P. Reese ,&nbsp;Zoran Obradovic ,&nbsp;Edward L. Fink ,&nbsp;Avrum Gillespie","doi":"10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Rationale &amp; Objective</h3><div>Most living kidney donors are members of the recipient’s social network. Our study aims to characterize patient and social network factors associated with recruiting a living kidney donor.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>A cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting &amp; Participants</h3><div>A total of 106 patients receiving hemodialysis (mean age 60 ± 13 years, 45% female, 75% Black) identified 508 network members (106 who offered to donate and 38 who received a donation request).</div></div><div><h3>Predictors</h3><div>Demographic and network factors (eg instrumental support, strength of relationships between the patients and members).</div></div><div><h3>Outcomes</h3><div>Whether the member offered to donate and whether the member’s offer was accepted. Patients’ qualitative reasoning regarding decision-making for recruiting a living kidney donor.</div></div><div><h3>Analytic Approach</h3><div>We performed a mixed-methods egocentric network analysis using multilevel logistic regression models as well as qualitative analysis of open-ended survey questions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Members who provided instrumental support were more likely to offer to donate (odds ratio 3.54; 95% CI [1.80-7.00]; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and have their offer declined (odds ratio 0.12; 95% CI [0.02-0.74]; <em>P</em> = 0.02). Members with stronger relationships with the patient (9.4 [1] vs 8.4 [2.5], <em>P</em> = 0.02) were more likely to be evaluated at a transplant center. Concern and guilt for the member was the most common reason that patients declined offers (41%) or did not make a living donor request (28%), while members’ insistence on donating was a common reason for accepting an offer.</div></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><div>Small sample of only patients receiving hemodialysis.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>For many patients, the barrier to living kidney donation was not a lack of potential donors within their network but reticence to recruit a donor due to concern and guilt for the donor. Future living donor kidney transplantation interventions should engage patients and their networks to facilitate communication, address patient-specific concerns and emphasize donor retention.</div></div><div><h3>Plain-Language Summary</h3><div>Despite most living donors being members of a patient’s social network, how these networks impact donation is poorly understood. We examined how characteristics of patients and their networks relate to donor recruitment along with qualitative insights on patients’ decision-making. We found that although many network members offered to donate, patients declined due to concern and guilt on their behalf. A member’s insistence on donating was a common reason for accepting an offer. Members who had stronger relationships with patients were more likely to be evaluated for transplantation. Future interventions should engage patients and their networks to facilitate communication, address patient-specific concerns, and emphasize donor retention. Such interventions may be particularly effective at reducing disparities in living donor kidney transplantation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17885,"journal":{"name":"Kidney Medicine","volume":"7 10","pages":"Article 101095"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Cross-Sectional Social Network Analysis of Decision-Making About Recruiting a Living Donor for Kidney Transplantation\",\"authors\":\"Briana E. Lee ,&nbsp;Heather M. Gardiner ,&nbsp;Crystal A. Gadegbeku ,&nbsp;Peter P. Reese ,&nbsp;Zoran Obradovic ,&nbsp;Edward L. Fink ,&nbsp;Avrum Gillespie\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Rationale &amp; Objective</h3><div>Most living kidney donors are members of the recipient’s social network. Our study aims to characterize patient and social network factors associated with recruiting a living kidney donor.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>A cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting &amp; Participants</h3><div>A total of 106 patients receiving hemodialysis (mean age 60 ± 13 years, 45% female, 75% Black) identified 508 network members (106 who offered to donate and 38 who received a donation request).</div></div><div><h3>Predictors</h3><div>Demographic and network factors (eg instrumental support, strength of relationships between the patients and members).</div></div><div><h3>Outcomes</h3><div>Whether the member offered to donate and whether the member’s offer was accepted. Patients’ qualitative reasoning regarding decision-making for recruiting a living kidney donor.</div></div><div><h3>Analytic Approach</h3><div>We performed a mixed-methods egocentric network analysis using multilevel logistic regression models as well as qualitative analysis of open-ended survey questions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Members who provided instrumental support were more likely to offer to donate (odds ratio 3.54; 95% CI [1.80-7.00]; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and have their offer declined (odds ratio 0.12; 95% CI [0.02-0.74]; <em>P</em> = 0.02). Members with stronger relationships with the patient (9.4 [1] vs 8.4 [2.5], <em>P</em> = 0.02) were more likely to be evaluated at a transplant center. Concern and guilt for the member was the most common reason that patients declined offers (41%) or did not make a living donor request (28%), while members’ insistence on donating was a common reason for accepting an offer.</div></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><div>Small sample of only patients receiving hemodialysis.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>For many patients, the barrier to living kidney donation was not a lack of potential donors within their network but reticence to recruit a donor due to concern and guilt for the donor. Future living donor kidney transplantation interventions should engage patients and their networks to facilitate communication, address patient-specific concerns and emphasize donor retention.</div></div><div><h3>Plain-Language Summary</h3><div>Despite most living donors being members of a patient’s social network, how these networks impact donation is poorly understood. We examined how characteristics of patients and their networks relate to donor recruitment along with qualitative insights on patients’ decision-making. We found that although many network members offered to donate, patients declined due to concern and guilt on their behalf. A member’s insistence on donating was a common reason for accepting an offer. Members who had stronger relationships with patients were more likely to be evaluated for transplantation. Future interventions should engage patients and their networks to facilitate communication, address patient-specific concerns, and emphasize donor retention. Such interventions may be particularly effective at reducing disparities in living donor kidney transplantation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kidney Medicine\",\"volume\":\"7 10\",\"pages\":\"Article 101095\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kidney Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590059525001311\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kidney Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590059525001311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由和目的大多数活体肾脏捐赠者都是接受者的社会网络成员。我们的研究旨在描述与招募活体肾脏捐赠者相关的患者和社会网络因素。研究设计:横断面研究。参与者共106名接受血液透析的患者(平均年龄60±13岁,女性45%,黑人75%)确定了508名网络成员(106名提供捐赠,38名收到捐赠请求)。预测因素人口统计和网络因素(如工具支持,患者和成员之间关系的强度)。结果该成员是否提出捐赠以及该成员的捐赠是否被接受。患者对招募活体肾供体决策的定性推理。分析方法我们使用多层逻辑回归模型进行了混合方法的自我中心网络分析,并对开放式调查问题进行了定性分析。结果提供工具支持的成员更有可能提出捐赠(优势比3.54;95% CI [1.80-7.00]; P < 0.001),并且他们的捐赠被拒绝(优势比0.12;95% CI [0.02-0.74]; P = 0.02)。与患者关系较好的成员(9.4 [1]vs 8.4 [2.5], P = 0.02)更有可能在移植中心接受评估。对成员的担忧和内疚是患者拒绝提供(41%)或不提出活体捐赠请求(28%)的最常见原因,而成员坚持捐赠是接受提供的常见原因。局限性:仅接受血液透析的患者样本小。结论对于许多患者来说,活体肾脏捐献的障碍不是他们的网络中缺乏潜在的捐赠者,而是由于对捐赠者的关注和内疚而不愿招募捐赠者。未来的活体肾移植干预措施应该让患者和他们的网络参与进来,以促进沟通,解决患者的具体问题,并强调捐赠者的保留。尽管大多数活体捐赠者都是患者社会网络的成员,但人们对这些网络如何影响捐赠却知之甚少。我们研究了患者及其网络的特征如何与供体招募以及患者决策的定性见解相关。我们发现,尽管许多网络成员表示愿意捐赠,但患者出于对他们的关心和内疚而拒绝了。成员坚持捐赠是接受提议的一个常见原因。与患者关系密切的成员更有可能被评估为移植。未来的干预措施应该让患者和他们的网络参与进来,以促进沟通,解决患者的具体问题,并强调捐赠者的保留。这种干预措施在减少活体供体肾移植的差异方面可能特别有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Cross-Sectional Social Network Analysis of Decision-Making About Recruiting a Living Donor for Kidney Transplantation

Rationale & Objective

Most living kidney donors are members of the recipient’s social network. Our study aims to characterize patient and social network factors associated with recruiting a living kidney donor.

Study Design

A cross-sectional study.

Setting & Participants

A total of 106 patients receiving hemodialysis (mean age 60 ± 13 years, 45% female, 75% Black) identified 508 network members (106 who offered to donate and 38 who received a donation request).

Predictors

Demographic and network factors (eg instrumental support, strength of relationships between the patients and members).

Outcomes

Whether the member offered to donate and whether the member’s offer was accepted. Patients’ qualitative reasoning regarding decision-making for recruiting a living kidney donor.

Analytic Approach

We performed a mixed-methods egocentric network analysis using multilevel logistic regression models as well as qualitative analysis of open-ended survey questions.

Results

Members who provided instrumental support were more likely to offer to donate (odds ratio 3.54; 95% CI [1.80-7.00]; P < 0.001) and have their offer declined (odds ratio 0.12; 95% CI [0.02-0.74]; P = 0.02). Members with stronger relationships with the patient (9.4 [1] vs 8.4 [2.5], P = 0.02) were more likely to be evaluated at a transplant center. Concern and guilt for the member was the most common reason that patients declined offers (41%) or did not make a living donor request (28%), while members’ insistence on donating was a common reason for accepting an offer.

Limitations

Small sample of only patients receiving hemodialysis.

Conclusions

For many patients, the barrier to living kidney donation was not a lack of potential donors within their network but reticence to recruit a donor due to concern and guilt for the donor. Future living donor kidney transplantation interventions should engage patients and their networks to facilitate communication, address patient-specific concerns and emphasize donor retention.

Plain-Language Summary

Despite most living donors being members of a patient’s social network, how these networks impact donation is poorly understood. We examined how characteristics of patients and their networks relate to donor recruitment along with qualitative insights on patients’ decision-making. We found that although many network members offered to donate, patients declined due to concern and guilt on their behalf. A member’s insistence on donating was a common reason for accepting an offer. Members who had stronger relationships with patients were more likely to be evaluated for transplantation. Future interventions should engage patients and their networks to facilitate communication, address patient-specific concerns, and emphasize donor retention. Such interventions may be particularly effective at reducing disparities in living donor kidney transplantation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Kidney Medicine
Kidney Medicine Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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