The psychosocial evaluation is well-recognized as an important component of the multifaceted assessment process to determine candidacy for heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, there is no consensus-based set of recommendations for either the full range of psychosocial domains to be assessed during the evaluation, or the set of processes and procedures to be used to conduct the evaluation, report its findings, and monitor patients' receipt of and response to interventions for any problems identified. This document provides recommendations on both evaluation content and process. It represents a collaborative effort of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) and the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, American Society of Transplantation, International Consortium of Circulatory Assist Clinicians, and Society for Transplant Social Workers. The Nursing, Health Science and Allied Health Council of the ISHLT organized a Writing Committee composed of international experts representing the ISHLT and the collaborating societies. This Committee synthesized expert opinion and conducted a comprehensive literature review to support the psychosocial evaluation content and process recommendations that were developed. The recommendations are intended to dovetail with current ISHLT guidelines and consensus statements for the selection of candidates for cardiothoracic transplantation and MCS implantation. Moreover, the recommendations are designed to promote consistency across programs in the performance of the psychosocial evaluation by proposing a core set of content domains and processes that can be expanded as needed to meet programs' unique needs and goals.

Background and objectivesBlack patients have a higher incidence of kidney failure but lower rate of deceased- and living-donor kidney transplantation compared with White patients, even after taking differences in comorbidities into account. We assessed whether social determinants of health (e.g., demographics, cultural, psychosocial, knowledge factors) could account for race differences in receiving deceased- and living-donor kidney transplantation.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsVia medical record review, we prospectively followed 1056 patients referred for kidney transplant (2010–2012), who completed an interview soon after kidney transplant evaluation, until their kidney transplant. We used multivariable competing risk models to estimate the cumulative incidence of receipt of any kidney transplant, deceased-donor transplant, or living-donor transplant, and the factors associated with each outcome.ResultsEven after accounting for social determinants of health, Black patients had a lower likelihood of kidney transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.99) and living-donor transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.95), but not deceased-donor transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.26). Black race, older age, lower income, public insurance, more comorbidities, being transplanted before changes to the Kidney Allocation System, greater religiosity, less social support, less transplant knowledge, and fewer learning activities were each associated with a lower probability of any kidney transplant. Older age, more comorbidities, being transplanted before changes to the Kidney Allocation System, greater religiosity, less social support, and fewer learning activities were each associated with a lower probability of deceased-donor transplant. Black race, older age, lower income, public insurance, higher body mass index, dialysis before kidney transplant, not presenting with a potential living donor, religious objection to living-donor transplant, and less transplant knowledge were each associated with a lower probability of living-donor transplant.ConclusionsRace and social determinants of health are associated with the likelihood of undergoing kidney transplant.

Background. African Americans (AA) have lower rates of kidney transplantation (KT) compared with Whites (WH), even after adjusting for demographic and medical factors. In this study, we examined whether the racial disparity in KT waitlisting persists after adjusting for social determinants of health (eg, cultural, psychosocial, and knowledge). Methods. We prospectively followed a cohort of 1055 patients who were evaluated for KT between 3 of 10 to 10 of 12 and followed through 8 of 18. Participants completed a semistructured telephone interview shortly after their first KT evaluation appointment. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson chi-square tests to examine race differences in the baseline characteristics. We then assessed racial differences in the probability of waitlisting while accounting for all predictors using cumulative incidence curves and Fine and Gray proportional subdistribution hazards models. Results. There were significant differences in the baseline characteristics between non-Hispanic AA and non-Hispanic WH. AA were 25% less likely (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.96) to be waitlisted than WH even after adjusting for medical factors and social determinants of health. In addition, being older, having lower income, public insurance, more comorbidities, and being on dialysis decreased the probability of waitlisting while having more social support and transplant knowledge increased the probability of waitlisting. Conclusions. Racial disparity in kidney transplant waitlisting persisted even after adjusting for medical factors and social determinants of health, suggesting the need to identify novel factors that impact racial disparity in transplant waitlisting. Developing interventions targeting cultural and psychosocial factors may enhance equity in access to transplantation.

The psychosocial evaluation is well-recognized as an important component of the multifaceted assessment process to determine candidacy for heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, there is no consensus-based set of recommendations for either the full range of psychosocial domains to be assessed during the evaluation, or the set of processes and procedures to be used to conduct the evaluation, report its findings, and monitor patients' receipt of and response to interventions for any problems identified. This document provides recommendations on both evaluation content and process. It represents a collaborative effort of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) and the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, American Society of Transplantation, International Consortium of Circulatory Assist Clinicians, and Society for Transplant Social Workers. The Nursing, Health Science and Allied Health Council of the ISHLT organized a Writing Committee composed of international experts representing the ISHLT and the collaborating societies. This Committee synthesized expert opinion and conducted a comprehensive literature review to support the psychosocial evaluation content and process recommendations that were developed. The recommendations are intended to dovetail with current ISHLT guidelines and consensus statements for the selection of candidates for cardiothoracic transplantation and MCS implantation. Moreover, the recommendations are designed to promote consistency across programs in the performance of the psychosocial evaluation by proposing a core set of content domains and processes that can be expanded as needed to meet programs' unique needs and goals.

Background:The clinical and prognostic significance of "inadequate" cervical smear is unknown, even though women with repeated inadequate smears are referred for colposcopy in the National Health Service (NHS) Cervical Screening Programme. Aim: To follow up a cohort of women with inadequate cervical smears over the following five years to examine outcomes, including detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Methods: The study comprised 1972 women with an inadequate cervical smear reported at Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996. Results of cervical smears and biopsies taken over the following five years were reviewed to confirm the outcome. Findings: Within five years, 2.2% of women with an inadequate cervical smear developed histologically confirmed high grade CIN, which was higher than the 1.3% seen among all women with cervical smear tests reported at the same laboratory over the same period, although the difference was not significant at the 95% level of confidence. Where inadequacy resulted from or was contributed to by "polymorphs obscuring", the risk of subsequent development/detection of high grade CIN was 2.6%. Conclusions: Women with inadequate cervical smears had an increased risk of detection of high grade CIN in the following five years compared with "all women". This increased risk was not significant, although if a larger number of women had been studied significance may have been reached, so that further studies are needed. The increased risk appeared to be at least partially dependent on the reason for inadequacy.