亲属活体供肾者术后心理状态调查和分析

目的 分析与研究亲属活体供肾者术前一般情况和术后心理状态.方法 应用自编个人资料问卷、社会支持评定量表、SF-36量表、Beck抑郁自评量表和Zung焦虑自评量表(SAS)对56名活体供肾者术后6个月至4年时的心理状态进行调查分析.结果 供者以女性、农村中低收入、低学历者居多,所有供者自愿捐肾.供者术后客观和主观支持良好,支持利用度稍差.供者术后躯体健康质量稍差,精神健康较好,无抑郁和焦虑状态.结论 亲属活体供.肾者术后的心理状态较好,但临床工作者仍应适时采取心理干预,加强健康教育,同时社会应加强宣教,术后应给予供者良好的社会支持.     

Psychosocial wellbeing after living kidney donation – a longitudinal,prospective study

Living kidney donation (LKD) has become routine practice across the world as the gold standard treatment of end‐stage renal failure. Whilst the physical risks and harms of LKD surgery are well documented, relatively little is known about psychosocial outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine whether it was possible to quantify the psychosocial impact of LKD. A prospective longitudinal study of 93 living kidney donors was performed. Data were collected preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months after donation. Questionnaires included 11 validated psychosocial outcome measures and questions specific to LKD. Over time, there was no significant change in wellbeing, life satisfaction, self‐esteem, social comparison, distress, depression, stress, anxiety or social support at 3 or 12 months. Despite this, questions specific to LKD indicated that donors felt positively about donation, with low levels of regret. This study provides a thorough assessment of psychosocial outcomes after LKD over the first year. Donors felt positive about LKD although there was no evidence of any significant change in psychosocial outcomes. Despite no measurable psychosocial benefit after living kidney donation, there was also no evidence of harm.     

Impact assessment in living kidney donation: psychosocial aspects in the donor

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation has a positive influence on graft survival and recipient quality of life (QoL). We assessed the psychosocial impact of donation to the donor. METHODS: Before and after the procedure 32 living kidney donors (mean age 41 years) completed the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety and Depression Scales; a Sociodemographic, Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and a Donation Perceptions Questionnaire. RESULTS: Living kidney donors were siblings (62.5%), parents (34.4%), or a daughter (3.1%). Transplantation was not successful in two cases: one recipient death and one graft failure. No significant changes were observed in donor QoL except for the SF-36 social functioning subscale that showed significant improvement after donation (P = .038). A reduction in depression symptom frequency was verified after donation (from 65.6% to 46.9%). There was an almost significant decrease in depression scores (P = .077), which was in fact was significant when one considered only successful transplants (P = .021). There was no significant variation in anxiety scores among donors. Time since transplantation was inversely correlated with overall anxiety (r = .443, P = .011), and with somatic anxiety subscales (r = .357, P = .045). For most donors, the decision to donate was easy and spontaneous. Nearly all donors would donate again and strongly encourage others to donate. CONCLUSIONS: Except for the social functioning scale that improved, no significant changes were observed in QoL of living kidney donors after the procedure. Depression scores significantly decreased after donation, but anxiety scores remained stable. Donors, who were mostly siblings, showed positive perceptions about donation, did not regret their decision, and strongly recommend it to others.     

Follow-up interviews of 12 living kidney donors one yr after open donor nephrectomy

Very few studies have prospectively followed living kidney donors the first year after donor surgery. In 2003, we in-depth interviewed living kidney donors one wk after donation to explore their immediate experiences of going through nephrectomy. The aim of the current investigation was to explore experiences regarding physical and psychosocial health during the first year after donor surgery. Twelve donors going through open donor nephrectomy were interviewed by telephone at one yr after donation. The analysis was carried out with an empirical phenomenological method. All participants expressed an overall positive experience about being a donor a year after transplantation. However, several participants experienced physical disincentives longer than expected post-donation. Emotional distress, such as mild depression and a feeling of loss, was also part of the donor experiences. Donors experiencing unsuccessful recipient outcome reported severe physical and mental reactions. This study provides insights on the physical and mental cost to living kidney donation. Awareness of how donors may experience their situations can help transplantation professionals in their efforts to understand and provide support.     

Psychosomatische Aspekte der Leberlebendspende

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the option to reduce organ scarcity and thereby waiting list mortality. The crucial ethical problem of LDLT is the fact that the well being of a donor is being jeopardized for the improvement of quality of life of the recipient. To preserve mental health of the donors, psychosomatic evaluation should be conducted including examination of the coping capacity, the mental stability of the donor and the voluntary nature of the donation. Thus a comprehensive disclosure of information to donors is necessary. Realistic outcome expectations, family relationships without extreme conflicts, sufficient autonomy of the donor-recipient relationship and social and familiar support are predictors facilitating a favorable psychosocial outcome for the donor. Before and after LDLT the health-related quality of life of the donors is similar or increased in comparison to the general population. Psychiatric complications following LDLT can occur in 13% of the donors. Female donors, donors who have surgical complications themselves and donors with unrealistic outcome expectations should be given psychotherapeutic support before they are admitted to living liver donation. Urgent indications in the case of acute liver failure and the donation by adult children for their parents are particular stress factors. For the safety of the donor, these combinations should be avoided whenever possible.     

Psychosocial Health of Living Kidney Donors: A Systematic Review

Knowledge of the psychosocial benefits and harms faced by living kidney donors is necessary for informed consent and follow-up. We reviewed any English language study where psychosocial function was assessed using questionnaires in 10 or more donors after nephrectomy. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Psych INFO, Sociological Abstracts and CINAHL databases and reviewed reference lists from 1969 through July 2006. Independently, two reviewers abstracted data on study, donor and control group characteristics, psychosocial measurements and their outcomes. Fifty-one studies examined 5139 donors who were assessed an average of 4 years after nephrectomy. The majority experienced no depression (77-95%) or anxiety (86-94%), with questionnaire scores similar to controls. The majority reported no change or an improved relationship with their recipient (86-100%), spouse (82-98%), family members (83-100%) and nonrecipient children (95-100%). Some experienced an increase in self-esteem. A majority (83-93%) expressed no change in their attractiveness. Although many scored high on quality of life measures, some prospective studies described a decrease after donation. A small proportion of donors had adverse psychosocial outcomes. Most kidney donors experience no change or an improvement in their psychosocial health after donation. Harms may be minimized through careful selection and follow-up.     

Psychosocial factors in living organ donation: clinical and ethical challenges

Living donor surgery has come to the forefront of public attention because increasing numbers of potential donors respond to the organ shortage. Because of several factors including decreased morbidity from donor surgery, online resources appealing for organs, and increased publicity about donation, new populations of unrelated donors are seeking evaluation for donor surgery. However, concern about potential coercion of vulnerable individuals, the potential for adverse psychosocial outcomes, and recent reports of donor deaths have reinvigorated discussion within the medical community about how best to assess donors. Research on the long-term quality of life outcomes for donors suggests that most donors are satisfied with their decision to donate. Small single-center studies on psychosocial outcomes have reported psychiatric sequelae after donor surgery. Little is known about the psychosocial outcomes for donors who are psychosocially excluded from donating.A multidisciplinary team approach, including social work and psychiatry evaluations, allows for the comprehensive assessment of important areas including motivation and expectations about surgery, current and past psychiatric conditions, history of substance or alcohol abuse, family support, understanding of the risks and alternatives of donor surgery for the donor and recipient, and motivation for donation including any evidence of coercion.     

Donor health assessment after living-donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: To elicit donor opinions on liver living donation through use of a survey that protected the anonymity of the respondent and to assay long-term (follow-up > 1 year) donor health by a widely recognized instrument for health assessment. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Living-donor liver transplantation is an accepted technique for children that has recently been extended to adults. Limited donor outcomes data suggest favorable results, but no outcomes data have been reported using an instrument that elicits an anonymous response from the donor or employs a widely recognized health survey. METHODS: Forty-one living-donors between June 1992 and June 1999 were identified and included in this study, regardless of specific donor or recipient outcome. Each donor received a 68-question survey and a standard McMaster Health Index. RESULTS: Survey response was 80%. All donors were satisfied with the information provided to them before donation. Eighty-eight percent of donors initially learned of living donation only after their child had been diagnosed with liver disease: 44% through the transplant center, 40% by popular media, 12% by their pediatrician, and 4% by their primary care physician. Physical symptoms, including pain and the surgical wound, were recurrent items of concern. Perception of time to "complete" recovery were less than 3 months (74%), 3 to 6 months (16%), and more than 6 months (10%). Donors' return to physical activities was shown by above-mean McMaster physical scores; scores for social and emotional health were not different from population data. There were no reported changes in sexual function or menstruation after donation, and five of six donors procreated. CONCLUSIONS: Donors overwhelmingly endorsed living donation regardless of recipient outcome or the occurrence of a complication. Eighty-nine percent advocated "increased" application of living donation beyond "emergency situations," and no donor responded that living donation should be abandoned or that he or she felt "forced" to donate.     

Psychosocial aspects of pediatric living donor liver transplantation.

While the medical aspects of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been investigated to a comparatively large degree, only in recent years have psychosocial aspects like donors' quality of life and attitude towards living donation been dealt with. In the course of a retrospective study, we examined 36 pediatric living liver donors at an average of 4.5 +/- 2.8 years postoperatively. The donation's impact on the family was considered "very high," "high," or "average" by 48% of the donors. The physical impact of the donation was regarded as being higher than the emotional impact. Subjective full recovery was achieved at an average of 4.5 months postoperatively. All patients stated that they would donate again. Donors' quality of life, as assessed with the 36-Item Short-Form Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-36), was significantly higher than the German normative sample. Anxiety and depression, assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-German version, were significantly lower compared to healthy controls. However, 14 patients (39%) described persistent, mostly physical, symptoms more than 1 yr postoperatively. In conclusion, the study's findings may enable clinicians to achieve a better understanding of living donors' situations, both pre- and postoperatively, and may help to assess the psychosocial risk of LDLT. Knowledge of possible ongoing problems may facilitate intervention at an early stage and should be included among the information given to potential living liver donors. Prospective studies using more specific instruments with an emphasis on the long-term psychosocial outcome of LDLT are needed for future research.     

Internet organ solicitation, explained

The growth of internet-based communications and the increasing demand for living organ donors are resulting in more use of Web sites for organ solicitation. Web resources have the capacity to improve public awareness about both organ donations and transplant outcomes. Rules for organ donation and fair allocation must follow legal principles regarding organ solicitation. Categories of internet recipient/donor matching services include "clearing house," "membership," and "individual" sites. All these raise ethical concerns related to the individual recipient/donor relationship and to the current system of organ allocation. However, a lack of rules and regulations regarding internet solicitation exists. Several pragmatic steps are proposed.     

Psycho-social health and quality of life among kidney donors following transplantation

IntroductionLiving kidney donation is a complex psychological experience for donors. The present study examined the psychosocial impact of kidney donation on donors.MethodsThe retrospective study included 506 donors who donated a kidney between 2010 and 2018 at a transplant centre in India. These donors responded via a donor insight questionnaire about their hospital anxiety, and their possible level of depression. The information included socio-demographic form with multiple information. The health survey was used periodically evaluate the psychosocial impact among donors following donation, including the transplant outcomes.ResultsThe majority of donors were females (79.4%). There was a significant improvement in the quality of life among donors (SF-36) following the donation of a kidney, especially among those donors who maintained good graft functions themselves as well as those who were informed about good kidney function in transplanted recipients. These donors showed a lesser degree of depressive and anxiety scores (HAD score 3.5 and BDI II 4.8) than donors who had problems themselves and/or whose donated kidneys did not function well. Most living donors (89.1%) felt that the act of donation had a positive impact on their lives and those donors would encourage others to donate a kidney. Overall, the graft outcomes impacted the donor's state of mind.ConclusionThe study showed a very positive impact of the acknowledgment of the donor by the recipient, especially those donors whose kidney transplants were well functioning. The state of depression, anxiety, and psycho-social outcomes correlated with the graft outcomes. Donors showed positive insight towards donation, with inner conscience still conclusively willing to donate and encourage others.     

Psychosocial data of potential living donors before living donor liver transplantation

In view of the scarcity of organ resources for transplantation, donation by living donors is assuming greater significance now that the technical-surgical problems involved have been solved. In the period between December 1999 and December 2000, 47 potential living liver donors were evaluated and a total of 27 hepatic lobes were transplanted at the Virchow-Klinikum of the Charité Hospital in Berlin. The close personal relationships between recipients and donors gives reason to anticipate high levels of psychosocial pressure during the pre-operative evaluation process; this process consists in part in looking into donor motivation, ambivalence and anxiety. The pre-operative psychometric evaluation of 40 potential living donors indicated that most of the potential donors see themselves as 'super-healthy' and tend to adapt to social expectations, while on the other hand those seven potential living donors not accepted for psychosocial reasons were marked by heightened values for anxious depression and pessimism. The results indicate in most cases a great willingness to donate and on the other hand a high level of obvious psychological pressure for a low number of potential donors. For the latter, both the clinical evaluation interview and the psychometric diagnostics used revealed clear-cut feelings of anxiety and ambivalence towards transplantation.     

Financial considerations in living organ donation

The shortage of cadaveric organs and increased success of living donor transplantation support the use of living organ donors. Clinical social workers have the opportunity to explore a variety of donor-specific issues when performing psychosocial evaluations of living donors, including motivation, psychological stability, and personal and family consequences of donation, as well as the direct and indirect financial consequences faced by living donors. Although most donor-related medical costs are covered, other associated expenses are not reimbursable and may put donors at risk for financial hardship. Out-of-pocket expenses also serve as a disincentive to donate for some volunteers. During the evaluation process, healthcare professionals should openly discuss how surgery, recovery, and any potential complications might impact prospective donors' financial situation. Donors can then decide whether they are able to realistically handle the costs of donation. We present the financial dilemmas experienced by many living donors and highlight efforts that have been made to deal with them.     

A Model of Risk and Protective Factors Influencing the Postoperative Course of Living Liver Donors

Living donor liver transplantation is increasing as an effort to overcome the organ shortage for patients with terminal liver diseases. To maintain high medical and ethical standards, donors are evaluated before and after donation to assess their suitability, monitor their postoperative courses, and minimize risks. A psychological/psychosocial evaluation is included in the assessment at most transplantation centers. Due to the high risk and the challenging process of recovery and integration of the experience into one's life, it is important to identify donors with suitable psychological/psychosocial profiles. The psychosocial evaluation is performed on the basis of medical ethical standards, common sense, professional experience, and only a few systematic observations. Some studies have identified factors, such as complications for the recipient, as a possible influence on the donor's postoperative course, while others have sought to link donor outcomes with scores on psychometric instruments prior to donation. We suggest that it is not one, but the interplay of several factors that affects the donor's postoperative course, including decision autonomy and embedding the donation into a meaningful context, in addition to coping skills and recipient outcome. Based on pilot data, clinical observations, and a study of the literature, we developed a model of risk and protective factors influencing the donors' postoperative courses, which could be used to assess living liver donors psychosocially before and after donation, thus enhancing selection and support.     

Psychosocial evaluation of Chinese living related kidney donors

Zhao W‐Y, Zeng L, Zhu Y‐H, Wang L‐M, Zhou M‐S, Han S, Zhang L. Psychosocial evaluation of Chinese living related kidney donors.
Clin Transplant 2010: 24: 766–771. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: Although living kidney transplantation has numerous advantages over cadaveric transplantation, donor apprehension remains a problem. This study investigated psychosocial features and quality of life in Chinese living kidney donors after transplantation procedures. Methods: Participants were 84 donors interviewed during follow‐up after donation. Sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated by a 22‐item questionnaire. Social support, quality of life, depression, and anxiety were objectively measured with the Social Support Rating Scale for Chinese, the Short‐Form 36 Health Survey, the modified Beck Depression Inventory, and the Self‐Rating Anxiety Scale questionnaire, respectively. Results: All donors volunteered without pressure from families or recipients. Altruistic motives were the main impetus for donation, and donors had good social support. Living transplantation affected donors’ quality of life, with a slight negative effect on some physical aspects. There were no major depressive or anxiety disorders following donation. Conclusions: Living kidney donation was a generally positive experience without evidence of major psychological disturbance. However, considering the limited size and duration of our study, we recommend careful follow‐up of all donors. We also recommend provision of social support services and removal of financial disincentives for donors.     

Psychosocial assessment of living organ donors: clinical and ethical considerations

This article outlines psychosocial and ethical issues to be considered when evaluating potential living organ donors. Six types of living donors are described: genetically related, emotionally related, "Good Samaritan" (both directed and nondirected), vendors, and organ exchangers. The primary domains to be assessed in the psychosocial evaluation are informed consent, motivation for donating and the decision-making process, adequacy of support (financial and social), behavioral and psychological health, and the donor-recipient relationship. Obstacles to the evaluation process include impression management, overt deception, minimization of behavioral risk factors, and cultural and language differences between the donor and the evaluator. Ethical concerns, such as the right to donate, donor autonomy, freedom from coercion, nonmaleficence and beneficence in donor selection, conflicts of interest, "reasonable" risks to donors, and recipient decision making are also explored. To fully evaluate living organ donation, studying psychosocial as well as medical outcomes is crucial.     

The most altruistic living organ donor: a best friend

Living organ donors are growing in number and account for a substantial proportion of organs transplanted. Types of living organ donors include family members, anonymous donors, and friends. Although familial donation is the most common form of living organ donation, anonymous donation and donation among friends are gaining popularity. Society has placed living organ donors at the top of the altruistic ladder. However, one's altruistic motives for living organ donation may be affected by the type of relationship he or she has with the organ recipient. Although family relationships are close, pressure and coercion from family members may make informed consent difficult. Anonymous donors do not have the pressure associated with a familial donation, but psychological and self-worth issues may influence their choice to donate. Friendship incorporates the close relationships associated with familial donation and the freedom associated with anonymous donation. Using Aristotle's definition of true friendship, the author argues that best friends are the only true altruistic living organ donors and therefore may be preferable to family donors or anonymous donors.     

Psychological Outcomes of Living Liver Donors From a Multicenter Prospective Study: Results From the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study2 (A2ALL‐2)

Although single‐center and cross‐sectional studies have suggested a modest impact of liver donation on donor psychological well‐being, few studies have assessed these outcomes prospectively among a large cohort. We conducted one of the largest, prospective, multicenter studies of psychological outcomes in living liver donors within the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study2 (A2ALL‐2) consortium. In total, 271 (91%) of 297 eligible donors were interviewed at least once before donation and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after donation using validated measures. We found that living liver donors reported low rates of major depressive (0–3%), alcohol abuse (2–5%), and anxiety syndromes (2–3%) at any given assessment in their first 2 years after donation. Between 4.7% and 9.6% of donors reported impaired mental well‐being at various time points. We identified significant predictors for donors’ perceptions of being better people and experiencing psychological growth following donation, including age, sex, relationship to recipient, ambivalence and motivation regarding donation, and feeling that donation would make life more worthwhile. Our results highlight the need for close psychosocial monitoring for those donors whose recipients died (n=27); some of those donors experienced guilt and concerns about responsibility. Careful screening and targeted, data‐driven follow‐up hold promise for optimizing psychological outcomes following this procedure for potentially vulnerable donors.     

Prospective psychosocial monitoring of living kidney donors using the Short Form-36 health survey: results at 12 months

BACKGROUND: Lack of prospective psychosocial outcome studies on living kidney donors impedes identification of risk factors for poor outcome. METHODS: Psychiatric assessment of living kidney donors was performed preoperatively and at 4 and 12 months postoperatively using a semistructured interview, the Short Form (SF)-36 Health Survey, and Patient Health Questionnaire psychiatric assessment. A total of 48 of 51 consecutive donors (94%) over a 5-year period were available for follow-up and completed all assessments. RESULTS: At preoperative assessment, only 1 of the 48 donors (2%) had a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition Axis I psychiatric disorder, but 15 (31%) developed a disorder during the 12 months, a 29% incidence. Disorders were depressive (12%), anxiety (6%), and adjustment (13%). Seven donors (15%) demonstrated a disorder at 12 months (depressive 10%, anxiety 2%, adjustment 2%). There was a corresponding decline in psychosocial function as measured by the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score; it decreased at both 4 and 12 months (P<0.01, P<0.05); for 19% of donors, this was a larger decrease than would be expected for the cohort (>2 standard error of measurement units). Scores for SF-36 scales of General Health and Vitality decreased significantly (P<0.05), as did those of Bodily Pain, indicating greater impairment from pain. Psychiatric disorder at 12 months was associated with donor psychosocial function (Mental Component Summary) and psychiatric disorder at 4 months (P<0.01), physical function (SF-36 Physical Component Summary score) at 4 and 12 months (P<0.01), and recipient psychiatric disorder at 12 months (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Donors should be alerted to possible psychosocial impairment, assessed for risk factors, and monitored for at least 12 months. Treatment should be available.     

Comparison between psychosocial long-term outcomes of recipients and donors after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The purpose of this study was to examine psychosocial states of recipients and donors several years after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to find out the pre-transplant predictors of desirable post-transplant psychosocial states. The recipients and donors of adult-to-adult LDLT at Kyoto University Hospital, Japan, from November 2001 through July 2003 were interviewed and examined by means of questionnaires about anxiety, depression, and quality of life (QOL), and the participants were evaluated by the same test batteries sent by mail three to five yr after LDLT. Twenty-seven pairs of recipients and donors, 13 recipients, and three donors participated in this study. The recipients and the donors had a decline in social QOL. The main predictor of psychosocial states of the recipients was the length of wait for LDLT, and the predictors of the donors were family or support system availability and recipients' depressive states at LDLT. The donors who were spouses of the recipients had better QOL than other donors. It might be better to perform LDLT as soon as possible once LDLT has been judged to be necessary, and the relative who is on close terms with the recipient should be selected as donor.