Identifying outcomes that are important to living kidney donors

A nominal group technique study

Camilla S. Hanson, Jeremy R. Chapman, John S. Gill, John Kanellis, Germaine Wong, Jonathan C. Craig, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Steve J. Chadban, Amit X. Garg, Angelique F. Ralph, Jule Pinter, Joshua R. Lewis, Allison Tong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background andobjectives Living kidneydonor candidates accept a range of risks and benefits when they decide to proceed with nephrectomy. Informed consent around this decision assumes they receive reliable data about outcomes they regard as critical to their decision making. We identified the outcomes most important to living kidney donors and described the reasons for their choices. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Previous donors were purposively sampled from three transplant units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and Canada (Vancouver). In focus groups using the nominal group technique, participants identified outcomes of donation, ranked them in order of importance, and discussed the reasons for their preferences. An importance score was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results Across 14 groups, 123 donors aged 27–78 years identified 35 outcomes. Across all participants, the ten highest ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance=0.40, scale 0–1), time to recovery (0.27), surgical complications (0.24), effect on family (0.22), donor-recipient relationship (0.21), life satisfaction (0.18), lifestyle restrictions (0.18), kidney failure (0.14), mortality (0.13), and acute pain/discomfort (0.12). Kidney function and kidney failure were more important to Canadian participants, compared with Australian donors. The themes identified included worthwhile sacrifice, insignificance of risks and harms, confidence and empowerment, unfulfilled expectations, and heightened susceptibility. Conclusions Living kidney donors prioritized a range of outcomes, with the most important being kidney health and the surgical, lifestyle, functional, and psychosocial effects of donation. Donors also valued improvements to their family life and donor-recipient relationship. There were clear regional differences in the rankings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)916-926
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Jun 2018

Cite this

Hanson, Camilla S. ; Chapman, Jeremy R. ; Gill, John S. ; Kanellis, John ; Wong, Germaine ; Craig, Jonathan C. ; Teixeira-Pinto, Armando ; Chadban, Steve J. ; Garg, Amit X. ; Ralph, Angelique F. ; Pinter, Jule ; Lewis, Joshua R. ; Tong, Allison. / Identifying outcomes that are important to living kidney donors : A nominal group technique study. In: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 6. pp. 916-926.
@article{4163f56f8679409b84e329fac4af1e5a,
title = "Identifying outcomes that are important to living kidney donors: A nominal group technique study",
abstract = "Background andobjectives Living kidneydonor candidates accept a range of risks and benefits when they decide to proceed with nephrectomy. Informed consent around this decision assumes they receive reliable data about outcomes they regard as critical to their decision making. We identified the outcomes most important to living kidney donors and described the reasons for their choices. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Previous donors were purposively sampled from three transplant units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and Canada (Vancouver). In focus groups using the nominal group technique, participants identified outcomes of donation, ranked them in order of importance, and discussed the reasons for their preferences. An importance score was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results Across 14 groups, 123 donors aged 27–78 years identified 35 outcomes. Across all participants, the ten highest ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance=0.40, scale 0–1), time to recovery (0.27), surgical complications (0.24), effect on family (0.22), donor-recipient relationship (0.21), life satisfaction (0.18), lifestyle restrictions (0.18), kidney failure (0.14), mortality (0.13), and acute pain/discomfort (0.12). Kidney function and kidney failure were more important to Canadian participants, compared with Australian donors. The themes identified included worthwhile sacrifice, insignificance of risks and harms, confidence and empowerment, unfulfilled expectations, and heightened susceptibility. Conclusions Living kidney donors prioritized a range of outcomes, with the most important being kidney health and the surgical, lifestyle, functional, and psychosocial effects of donation. Donors also valued improvements to their family life and donor-recipient relationship. There were clear regional differences in the rankings.",
author = "Hanson, {Camilla S.} and Chapman, {Jeremy R.} and Gill, {John S.} and John Kanellis and Germaine Wong and Craig, {Jonathan C.} and Armando Teixeira-Pinto and Chadban, {Steve J.} and Garg, {Amit X.} and Ralph, {Angelique F.} and Jule Pinter and Lewis, {Joshua R.} and Allison Tong",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "7",
doi = "10.2215/CJN.13441217",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "916--926",
journal = "Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology",
issn = "1555-9041",
publisher = "American Society of Nephrology",
number = "6",

}

Hanson, CS, Chapman, JR, Gill, JS, Kanellis, J, Wong, G, Craig, JC, Teixeira-Pinto, A, Chadban, SJ, Garg, AX, Ralph, AF, Pinter, J, Lewis, JR & Tong, A 2018, 'Identifying outcomes that are important to living kidney donors: A nominal group technique study', Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 916-926. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.13441217

Identifying outcomes that are important to living kidney donors : A nominal group technique study. / Hanson, Camilla S.; Chapman, Jeremy R.; Gill, John S.; Kanellis, John; Wong, Germaine; Craig, Jonathan C.; Teixeira-Pinto, Armando; Chadban, Steve J.; Garg, Amit X.; Ralph, Angelique F.; Pinter, Jule; Lewis, Joshua R.; Tong, Allison.

In: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Vol. 13, No. 6, 07.06.2018, p. 916-926.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identifying outcomes that are important to living kidney donors

T2 - A nominal group technique study

AU - Hanson, Camilla S.

AU - Chapman, Jeremy R.

AU - Gill, John S.

AU - Kanellis, John

AU - Wong, Germaine

AU - Craig, Jonathan C.

AU - Teixeira-Pinto, Armando

AU - Chadban, Steve J.

AU - Garg, Amit X.

AU - Ralph, Angelique F.

AU - Pinter, Jule

AU - Lewis, Joshua R.

AU - Tong, Allison

PY - 2018/6/7

Y1 - 2018/6/7

N2 - Background andobjectives Living kidneydonor candidates accept a range of risks and benefits when they decide to proceed with nephrectomy. Informed consent around this decision assumes they receive reliable data about outcomes they regard as critical to their decision making. We identified the outcomes most important to living kidney donors and described the reasons for their choices. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Previous donors were purposively sampled from three transplant units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and Canada (Vancouver). In focus groups using the nominal group technique, participants identified outcomes of donation, ranked them in order of importance, and discussed the reasons for their preferences. An importance score was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results Across 14 groups, 123 donors aged 27–78 years identified 35 outcomes. Across all participants, the ten highest ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance=0.40, scale 0–1), time to recovery (0.27), surgical complications (0.24), effect on family (0.22), donor-recipient relationship (0.21), life satisfaction (0.18), lifestyle restrictions (0.18), kidney failure (0.14), mortality (0.13), and acute pain/discomfort (0.12). Kidney function and kidney failure were more important to Canadian participants, compared with Australian donors. The themes identified included worthwhile sacrifice, insignificance of risks and harms, confidence and empowerment, unfulfilled expectations, and heightened susceptibility. Conclusions Living kidney donors prioritized a range of outcomes, with the most important being kidney health and the surgical, lifestyle, functional, and psychosocial effects of donation. Donors also valued improvements to their family life and donor-recipient relationship. There were clear regional differences in the rankings.

AB - Background andobjectives Living kidneydonor candidates accept a range of risks and benefits when they decide to proceed with nephrectomy. Informed consent around this decision assumes they receive reliable data about outcomes they regard as critical to their decision making. We identified the outcomes most important to living kidney donors and described the reasons for their choices. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Previous donors were purposively sampled from three transplant units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and Canada (Vancouver). In focus groups using the nominal group technique, participants identified outcomes of donation, ranked them in order of importance, and discussed the reasons for their preferences. An importance score was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results Across 14 groups, 123 donors aged 27–78 years identified 35 outcomes. Across all participants, the ten highest ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance=0.40, scale 0–1), time to recovery (0.27), surgical complications (0.24), effect on family (0.22), donor-recipient relationship (0.21), life satisfaction (0.18), lifestyle restrictions (0.18), kidney failure (0.14), mortality (0.13), and acute pain/discomfort (0.12). Kidney function and kidney failure were more important to Canadian participants, compared with Australian donors. The themes identified included worthwhile sacrifice, insignificance of risks and harms, confidence and empowerment, unfulfilled expectations, and heightened susceptibility. Conclusions Living kidney donors prioritized a range of outcomes, with the most important being kidney health and the surgical, lifestyle, functional, and psychosocial effects of donation. Donors also valued improvements to their family life and donor-recipient relationship. There were clear regional differences in the rankings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048270123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2215/CJN.13441217

DO - 10.2215/CJN.13441217

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 916

EP - 926

JO - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

JF - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

SN - 1555-9041

IS - 6

ER -