Ambivalence in living liver donors

Simpson, Mary Ann; Kendrick, Julia B.; Verbesey, Jennifer E.; Morin, Denise S.; Dew, Mary Amanda; Trabucco, Agnes; Pomposelli, James J.; Pomfret, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1002/lt.22342

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggestion warrants further research. Simpson et al suggested that ambivalence should not be the sole reason for disqualifying donor candidates and suggested that it is appropriate to consider other psychological indicators [19]. Our study also revealed that ALDs had a better mental dimension of quality of life than did PLDs during assessment stage.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.MethodsThis descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.ResultsThe mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20–47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0–7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.ConclusionAmbivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Simpson et al (10) found similar scores, whereas Togashi et al (9) noted somewhat lower scores. The hypothesis regarding the decrease of physical QOL in living donors 3 months after LLD could be confirmed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Donor Quality of Life up to Two Years After Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Kroencke

Nashan²,

Fischer³

et al. 2014

Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The donor's ambivalence may simply indicate his or her process of deliberation. Researchers also have suggested that ambivalence should not be the sole reason to reject potential donors . Therefore, the nature and the context of ambivalence also warrant further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of social support and donation-related concerns on ambivalence of living liver donor candidates

Lai¹,

Lee

Juang

et al. 2014

Liver Transpl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ambivalence in the decision-making process for living liver donors has the potential to result in their experiencing a negative mental status. To promote donor candidates' well-being, it is important to study the factors related to ambivalence. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the ambivalence of living liver donor candidates and to investigate the effect of social support and donation-related concerns on their ambivalence. A cross-sectional design was used. In total, 100 living liver donor candidates who underwent a preoperative evaluation between April and October 2009 were recruited for the study. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire that contained items related to ambivalence, donation-related concerns, and social support. The mean score for ambivalence was 3.14 (standard deviation 5 1.8), and the median was 3. Only 7% of the study sample reported no ambivalence during the assessment stage. Ambivalence was positively correlated with donation-related concerns (physical concerns, r 5 0.39; psychosocial concerns, r 5 0.43; financial concerns, r 5 0.29) and negatively correlated with social support (r 5 20.16 to 20.33). Those with psychosocial concerns had significantly worse ambivalence (b 5 0.29, P 5 0.03), but social support mitigated ambivalence (b 5 20.34, P 5 0.01). When intimacy and social support were included in the model, the effect of psychosocial concerns on ambivalence became nonsignificant (b 5 0.24, P 5 0.08). Ambivalence is common among living liver donor candidates, but instrumental social support can mediate the negative effect of donation-related concerns. Recommendations include providing appropriate social support to minimize donation-related concerns and, thus, to reduce the ambivalence of living liver candidates. Liver Transpl 20: 1365-1371, 2014. V C 2014 AASLD. Received March 19, 2014 accepted July 6, 2014. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was developed to respond to the high demand for organs and the shortage of deceased organ donations.1,2 A remarkable increase in adult LDLT has been observed; currently, these donors account for approximately 10% of all liver transplants in the United States. According to the literature, the percentage of LDLT, compared with those that used organs from the deceased, is 99.2% in Japan, 65.8% in Korea, and 36.5% in Taiwan.

show abstract

Ambivalence in living liver donors

Cited by 29 publications

References 27 publications

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

Donor Quality of Life up to Two Years After Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Effect of social support and donation-related concerns on ambivalence of living liver donor candidates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About