活体捐赠者讨论方向的决定因素和后果。

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY Progress in Transplantation Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-09 DOI:10.1177/15269248231212913
Mary K Roberts, Jonathan Daw
{"title":"活体捐赠者讨论方向的决定因素和后果。","authors":"Mary K Roberts, Jonathan Daw","doi":"10.1177/15269248231212913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Living donor discussions in which kidney transplant candidates discuss living kidney donation with their social network are an important step in the living donor kidney transplant process. No prior research has investigated whether who initiates discussion or influences evaluation agreement rates or how these processes may contribute to disparities. <b>Research Questions:</b> This study aimed to determine how common candidate- and potential-donor-initiated discussions were, at what rate each discussion type resulted in agreement to be evaluated for living donation, and what sociodemographic characteristics predicted living donor discussion and agreements. <b>Design:</b> A 2015 cross-sectional survey at a single, large Southeastern US transplant center measured kidney transplant candidates' social networks, including whether they had a donor discussion, who initiated it, and whether the discussion resulted in the donor evaluation agreement. Candidate-network member pairs' probability of having a candidate-initiated discussion, potential-living donor-initiated discussion, or no discussions were compared in multinomial logistic regression, and the probability of the discussion resulted in evaluation agreement was evaluated in multinomial logistic regression. <b>Results:</b> Sixty-six kidney transplant candidates reported on 1421 social network members. Most (80%) candidate/network-member pairs did not have a living donor discussion, with candidate-initiated discussions (11%) slightly more common than potential-donor-initiated discussions (10%). Evaluation agreement was much more common for potential-donor-initiated (72%) than for candidate-initiated discussions (39%). Potential-donor-initiated discussions were more common for White candidates (16%) than for Black candidates (7%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Potential-donor-initiated discussions resulted in evaluation agreement much more frequently than candidate-initiated discussions. This dynamic may contribute to racial living donation disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":20671,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Transplantation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691288/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Determinants and Consequences of Living Donor Discussion Direction.\",\"authors\":\"Mary K Roberts, Jonathan Daw\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15269248231212913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Living donor discussions in which kidney transplant candidates discuss living kidney donation with their social network are an important step in the living donor kidney transplant process. No prior research has investigated whether who initiates discussion or influences evaluation agreement rates or how these processes may contribute to disparities. <b>Research Questions:</b> This study aimed to determine how common candidate- and potential-donor-initiated discussions were, at what rate each discussion type resulted in agreement to be evaluated for living donation, and what sociodemographic characteristics predicted living donor discussion and agreements. <b>Design:</b> A 2015 cross-sectional survey at a single, large Southeastern US transplant center measured kidney transplant candidates' social networks, including whether they had a donor discussion, who initiated it, and whether the discussion resulted in the donor evaluation agreement. Candidate-network member pairs' probability of having a candidate-initiated discussion, potential-living donor-initiated discussion, or no discussions were compared in multinomial logistic regression, and the probability of the discussion resulted in evaluation agreement was evaluated in multinomial logistic regression. <b>Results:</b> Sixty-six kidney transplant candidates reported on 1421 social network members. Most (80%) candidate/network-member pairs did not have a living donor discussion, with candidate-initiated discussions (11%) slightly more common than potential-donor-initiated discussions (10%). Evaluation agreement was much more common for potential-donor-initiated (72%) than for candidate-initiated discussions (39%). Potential-donor-initiated discussions were more common for White candidates (16%) than for Black candidates (7%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Potential-donor-initiated discussions resulted in evaluation agreement much more frequently than candidate-initiated discussions. This dynamic may contribute to racial living donation disparities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Transplantation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691288/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248231212913\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248231212913","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:活体捐赠者讨论肾脏移植候选人与他们的社交网络讨论活体肾脏捐赠是活体捐赠者肾脏移植过程中的重要一步。先前没有研究调查是谁发起讨论或影响评估一致率,或者这些过程如何导致差异。研究问题:这项研究旨在确定候选人和潜在捐赠者发起的讨论有多普遍,每种讨论类型在多大程度上达成了对活体捐赠的评估协议,以及哪些社会人口学特征预测了活体捐赠者的讨论和协议。设计:2015年在美国东南部一家大型移植中心进行的一项横断面调查测量了肾移植候选人的社交网络,包括他们是否与捐赠者进行了讨论,是谁发起的,以及讨论是否达成了捐赠者评估协议。在多项逻辑回归中比较候选网络成员对有候选人发起的讨论、潜在活体捐赠者发起的讨论或没有讨论的概率,并在多项式逻辑回归中评估讨论导致评估一致性的概率。结果:在1421名社交网络成员中报告了66名肾移植候选人。大多数(80%)候选人/网络成员对没有进行活体捐赠者讨论,候选人发起的讨论(11%)比潜在捐赠者发起的讨论略常见(10%)。潜在捐赠者发起的评估协议(72%)比候选人发起的讨论(39%)更常见。潜在捐赠者发起的讨论在白人候选人(16%)中比黑人候选人(7%)更常见。结论:潜在捐助者发起的讨论比候选人发起的讨论更频繁地达成评价协议。这种动态可能会导致种族生活捐赠的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Determinants and Consequences of Living Donor Discussion Direction.

Introduction: Living donor discussions in which kidney transplant candidates discuss living kidney donation with their social network are an important step in the living donor kidney transplant process. No prior research has investigated whether who initiates discussion or influences evaluation agreement rates or how these processes may contribute to disparities. Research Questions: This study aimed to determine how common candidate- and potential-donor-initiated discussions were, at what rate each discussion type resulted in agreement to be evaluated for living donation, and what sociodemographic characteristics predicted living donor discussion and agreements. Design: A 2015 cross-sectional survey at a single, large Southeastern US transplant center measured kidney transplant candidates' social networks, including whether they had a donor discussion, who initiated it, and whether the discussion resulted in the donor evaluation agreement. Candidate-network member pairs' probability of having a candidate-initiated discussion, potential-living donor-initiated discussion, or no discussions were compared in multinomial logistic regression, and the probability of the discussion resulted in evaluation agreement was evaluated in multinomial logistic regression. Results: Sixty-six kidney transplant candidates reported on 1421 social network members. Most (80%) candidate/network-member pairs did not have a living donor discussion, with candidate-initiated discussions (11%) slightly more common than potential-donor-initiated discussions (10%). Evaluation agreement was much more common for potential-donor-initiated (72%) than for candidate-initiated discussions (39%). Potential-donor-initiated discussions were more common for White candidates (16%) than for Black candidates (7%). Conclusion: Potential-donor-initiated discussions resulted in evaluation agreement much more frequently than candidate-initiated discussions. This dynamic may contribute to racial living donation disparities.

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
Progress in Transplantation
Progress in Transplantation SURGERY-TRANSPLANTATION
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Progress in Transplantation (PIT) is the official journal of NATCO, The Organization for Transplant Professionals. Journal Partners include: Australasian Transplant Coordinators Association and Society for Transplant Social Workers. PIT reflects the multi-disciplinary team approach to procurement and clinical aspects of organ and tissue transplantation by providing a professional forum for exchange of the continually changing body of knowledge in transplantation.
期刊最新文献
Four Decades of Research Productivity and Hot Spots in Pancreas Transplantation. A Mixed Method Study in Young Children Participating in Clinical Research During A Kidney Transplantation Trajectory. Culturally Safe Care Barriers and Facilitators in Organ Transplantation and Donation According to First Nations and Health Professionals in Quebec, Canada. Patient Perspectives on the Use of Aging Metrics for Kidney Transplant Decision-Making. A Comparative Study of Cognitive and Motor Performance in Liver Recipients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1