The perceived threat of the risk for graft rejection and health‐related quality of life among organ transplant recipients

Abstract

In conclusion, this study suggests that it is possible to measure the perceived threat of the risk for graft rejection in three homogenous factors. Relevance to clinical practice. The instrument perceived threat of the risk for graft rejection, might be usable to measure the impact of fear of graft rejection, to predict needs of pedagogical intervention strategies to reduce fear and to improve Health-Related Quality of Life related to graft rejection.

Understanding the Perceived Threat of the Risk of Graft Rejections

“…OTRs expect damage to happen if graft rejection occurs, that is, reduced function of their transplanted organ. Most of them make strong efforts to protect themselves from graft rejection, which we have reported in Nilsson et al (2008), and about 33% of the OTRs fear that this will actually happen (Nilsson et al, 2011). …”

“…For example, how do OTRs in various ages perceive the threat of the risk for graft rejection? No validated domain-specific instrument was ever used to measure this perceived threat among OTRs receiving various types of solid organs, before our group actually developed one (Nilsson et al, 2011). The different characteristics of the threat of the risk for graft rejection were rarely described and the absence of systematic and structured measurements hampered the possibility to make any comparisons between groups of OTRs to evaluate the effects of various interventions.…”

Concept of the Voluntariness in Kidney Transplantation from the Position of Donors and Recipients

“…They mention that they do not want to cause any harm on donors, and that both recipient and donor are disappointed in case of the rejection of kidney. (Nilsson et al, 2011;Waterman et al, 2006) The recipient may be grateful and indebted to the donor by accepting her/his kidney. Donors deserve to feel good with the credits of their generosity.…”

“…Return to dialysis treatment is highly undesirable. (Nilsson et al, 2011;Kierans, 2005) Losing an object of love, worsening of bodily health and encountering humiliating situations that injure self-respect may lead to emergence and continuation of affective disorders. Thus, it is required to provide sociopsychological support to patients both suffering from chronic renal failure and undergoing a kidney transplant.…”

Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey

“…[1][2][3] Prior research has quantified the frequency and severity of adverse effects associated with long-term immunosuppression, [4][5][6][7] and there is a body of evidence showing that recipients with kidney transplantation have a strong focus on graft survival, an aversion to returning to dialysis, and a willingness to accept side effects and adverse outcomes as being a necessary part of the treatment. [8][9][10][11][12] However, no studies have quantified the trade-offs that patients may be willing to make to reduce the impact of debilitating side effects or adverse events such as cancer through minimisation or withdrawal of immunosuppression and the risk of graft dysfunction. To date, as with many chronic diseases, treatment decisions have been predominantly driven by clinicians with Strengths and limitations of this study ▪ Ability to elicit preferences and trade-offs for multiple outcomes of varying severity in a way that minimises cognitive burden and error rates.…”