Advertisement
American Journal of Kidney Diseases

Donor and Recipient Perspectives on Anonymity in Kidney Donation From Live Donors: A Multicenter Survey Study

Published:November 20, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.07.014

      Background

      Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity.

      Study Design

      Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods.

      Setting & Participants

      414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery.

      Factors

      Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery.

      Outcomes

      Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity.

      Results

      Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and after surgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains.

      Limitations

      The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection.

      Conclusions

      This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymity.

      Index Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Kidney Diseases
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • De Klerk M.
        • Ijzermans J.N.M.
        • Kranenburg L.W.
        • Hilhorst M.T.
        • Busschbach J.J.
        • Weimar W.
        Cross-over transplantation; a new national program for living kidney donations.
        Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004; 148: 420-423
        • Gezondheidsraad
        Nieuwe wegen naar orgaandonatie.
        Gezondheidsraad, Den Haag2003
        • Matas A.J.
        • Garvey C.A.
        • Jacobs C.L.
        • Kahn J.P.
        Nondirected donation of kidneys from living donors.
        N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 433-436
        • Dor F.J.M.F.
        • Massey E.K.
        • Frunza M.
        • et al.
        New classification of ELPAT for living organ donation.
        Transplantation. 2011; 91: 935-938
        • De Klerk M.
        • Zuidema W.
        • Kranenburg L.
        • Ijzermans J.N.M.
        • Weimar W.
        Justification for anonymity in a kidney exchange program.
        in: Weimar W. Bos M. Busschbach J.J. Organ Transplantation: Ethical, Legal and Psychosocial Aspects Towards a Common European Policy. Pabst, Lengerich2008: 236-240
        • Lennerling A.
        • Fehrman-Ekholm I.
        • Nordén G.
        Nondirected living kidney donation: experiences in a Swedish transplant centre.
        Clin Transplant. 2008; 22: 304-308
        • Mamode N.
        • Lennerling A.
        • Citterio F.
        • et al.
        Anonymity and live-donor transplantation: an ELPAT view.
        Transplantation. 2013; 95: 536-541
        • Adams P.L.
        • Cohen D.J.
        • Danovitch G.M.
        • et al.
        The nondirected live-kidney donor: ethical considerations and practice guidelines: a National Conference Report 1.
        Transplantation. 2002; 74: 582-589
        • Kranenburg L.
        • Zuidema W.
        • Vanderkroft P.
        • et al.
        The implementation of a kidney exchange program does not induce a need for additional psychosocial support.
        Transpl Int. 2007; 20: 432-439
        • Massey E.K.
        • Kranenburg L.W.
        • Zuidema W.C.
        • et al.
        Encouraging psychological outcomes after altruistic donation to a stranger.
        Am J Transplant. 2010; 10: 1445-1452
        • Braun V.
        • Clarke V.
        Using thematic analysis in psychology.
        Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77-101
        • Bailey P.K.
        • Ben-Shlomo Y.
        • de Salis I.
        • Tomson C.
        • Owen-Smith A.
        Better the donor you know? A qualitative study of renal patients' views on ‘altruistic’ live-donor kidney transplantation.
        Soc Sci Med. 2016; 150: 104-111
        • Maple H.
        • Chilcot J.
        • Burnapp L.
        • et al.
        Motivations, outcomes, and characteristics of unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donors in the United Kingdom.
        Transplantation. 2014; 98: 1182-1189
        • Gill P.
        • Lowes L.
        Gift exchange and organ donation: donor and recipient experiences of live related kidney transplantation.
        Int J Nurs Stud. 2008; 45: 1607-1617
        • Chang A.
        • Anderson E.E.
        • Turner H.T.
        • Shoham D.
        • Hou S.H.
        • Grams M.
        Identifying potential kidney donors using social networking web sites.
        Clin Transplant. 2013; 27: E320-E326
        • Frunza M.
        • Assche van K.
        • Lennerling A.
        • et al.
        Dealing with public solicitation of organs from living donors-an ELPAT view.
        Transplantation. 2015; 99: 2210-2214
        • Park K.
        • Moon J.I.
        • Kim S.I.
        • Kim Y.S.
        Exchange donor program in kidney transplantation.
        Transplantation. 1999; 67: 336-338