Searched for: in-biosketch:yes
person:massia02
Anxiety, depression, and regret of donation in living kidney donors
Holscher, Courtenay M; Leanza, Joseph; Thomas, Alvin G; Waldram, Madeleine M; Haugen, Christine E; Jackson, Kyle R; Bae, Sunjae; Massie, Allan B; Segev, Dorry L
BACKGROUND:Previous studies have reported a wide range of prevalence of post-donation anxiety, depression, and regret in living kidney donors (LKDs). It is also unclear what risk factors are associated with these outcomes. METHODS:We screened 825 LKDs for anxiety and depression using 2-item GAD-2 and PHQ-2 scales and asked about regret. RESULTS:Overall, 5.5% screened positive for anxiety, 4.2% for depression, and 2.1% reported regretting their donation. While there was moderate correlation between positive anxiety and depression screens (r = 0.52), there was no correlation between regret and positive screens (r < 0.1 for both). A positive anxiety screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive depression screen (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 13.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.78-27.74, p < 0.001). Similarly, a positive depression screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 19.50, 95% CI 6.94-54.81, p < 0.001), as well as in those whose recipients experienced graft loss (aRR 5.38, 95% CI 1.29-22.32, p = 0.02). Regret was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 5.68, 95% CI 1.20-26.90, p = 0.03). This was a single center cross-sectional study which may limit generalizability and examination of causal effects. Also, due to the low prevalence of adverse psychosocial outcomes, we may lack power to detect some associations between donor characteristics and anxiety, depression, or regret. CONCLUSIONS:Although there is a low prevalence of anxiety, depression, and regret of donation among LKDs, these are interrelated conditions and a positive screen for one condition should prompt evaluation for other conditions.
PMCID:6122576
PMID: 30180815
ISSN: 1471-2369
CID: 5128962
Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Use of Mobile Health Technologies for Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up: Survey Study
Eno, Ann K; Thomas, Alvin G; Ruck, Jessica M; Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Sarah E; Halpern, Samantha E; Waldram, Madeleine M; Muzaale, Abimereki D; Purnell, Tanjala S; Massie, Allan B; Garonzik Wang, Jacqueline M; Lentine, Krista L; Segev, Dorry L; Henderson, Macey L
BACKGROUND:In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up. METHODS:We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up. RESULTS:Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.
PMCID:6231841
PMID: 30305260
ISSN: 2291-5222
CID: 5129012
Obesity Is Associated with Increased Risk of Mortality among Living Kidney Donors [Meeting Abstract]
Reed, Rhiannon; Massie, Allan B.; Sawinski, Deirdre; MacLennan, Paul A.; Shelton, Brittany A.; Mustian, Margaux N.; McWilliams, Deanna M.; Kumar, Vineeta; Mannon, Roslyn B.; Gaston, Robert; Segev, Dorry L.; Lewis, Cora E.; Locke, Jayme E.
ISI:000444541200070
ISSN: 0041-1337
CID: 5132362
Clinical Utility and Interpretation of CKD Stages in Living Kidney Donors [Meeting Abstract]
Massie, Allan; Henderson, Macey L.; Snyder, Jon; Al Ammary, Fawaz; Segev, Dorry L.
ISI:000444541200075
ISSN: 0041-1337
CID: 5132372
Pre-Donation Renal Function, Early Post-Donation Renal Function, and Subsequent ESRD Risk in Living Kidney Donors [Meeting Abstract]
Massie, Allan; Fahmy, Lara M.; Henderson, Macey L.; Thomas, Alvin; Snyder, Jon; Al Ammary, Fawaz; Segev, Dorry L.
ISI:000444541200076
ISSN: 0041-1337
CID: 5132382
Risk Factors for a Declining Renal Function Trajectory after Living Kidney Donation [Meeting Abstract]
Holscher, Courtenay M.; Thomas, Alvin G.; Haugen, Christine E.; Jackson, Kyle R.; Wang, Jacqueline Garonzik; Massie, Allan B.; Segev, Dorry L.
ISI:000447760600506
ISSN: 1072-7515
CID: 5132512
Electronic messaging and communication with living kidney donors
Ruck, Jessica M; Zhou, Sheng; Thomas, Alvin G; Cramm, Shannon L; Massie, Allan B; Montgomery, John R; Berger, Jonathan C; Henderson, Macey L; Segev, Dorry L
New regulations require living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up for 2Â years, but donor retention remains poor. Electronic communication (eg, text messaging and e-mail) might improve donor retention. To explore the possible impact of electronic communication, we recruited LKDs to participate in an exploratory study of communication via telephone, e-mail, or text messaging postdonation; communication through this study was purely optional and did not replace standard follow-up. Of 69 LKDs recruited, 3% requested telephone call, 52% e-mail, and 45% text messaging. Telephone response rate was 0%; these LKDs were subsequently excluded from analysis. Overall response rates with e-mail or text messaging at 1Â week, 1Â month, 6Â months, 1Â year, and 2Â years were 94%, 87%, 81%, 72%, and 72%. Lower response rates were seen in African Americans, even after adjusting for age, sex, and contact method (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse 2.07 5.8116.36 , PÂ =Â .001). Text messaging had higher response rates than e-mail (IRR nonresponse 0.11 0.280.71 , PÂ =Â .007). Rates of nonresponse were similar by sex (IRR 0.68, PÂ =Â .4) and age (IRR 1.00, PÂ >Â .9). In summary, LKDs strongly preferred electronic messaging over telephone and were highly responsive 2Â years postdonation, even in this nonrequired, nonincentivized exploratory research study. These electronic communication tools can be automated and may improve regulatory compliance and postdonation care.
PMCID:6116553
PMID: 29281129
ISSN: 1399-0012
CID: 4301712
The Incremental of Cost of Incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplant: A National Cohort Analysis. [Meeting Abstract]
Axelrod, D.; Lentine, K.; Schnitzler, M.; Xiao, H.; Lou, X.; Orandi, B.; Wang, J. Garonzik; Massie, A.; Segev, D.
ISI:000404515704584
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5520682
Walking on Sunshine: Industry's Payments to Transplant Surgeons [Meeting Abstract]
Ahmed, Rizwan; Bae, Sunjae; Chow, Eric; Massie, Allan; King, Elizabeth; Orandi, Babak; Segev, Dorry
ISI:000392621100188
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5520642
The National Landscape of Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up in the United States
Henderson, M L; Thomas, A G; Shaffer, A; Massie, A B; Luo, X; Holscher, C M; Purnell, T S; Lentine, K L; Segev, D L
In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/ United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) mandated that transplant centers collect data on living kidney donors (LKDs) at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, with policy-defined thresholds for the proportion of complete living donor follow-up (LDF) data submitted in a timely manner (60 days before or after the expected visit date). While mandated, it was unclear how centers across the country would perform in meeting thresholds, given potential donor and center-level challenges of LDF. To better understand the impact of this policy, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for 31,615 LKDs between January 2010 and June 2015, comparing proportions of complete and timely LDF form submissions before and after policy implementation. We also used multilevel logistic regression to assess donor- and center-level characteristics associated with complete and timely LDF submissions. Complete and timely 2-year LDF increased from 33% prepolicy (January 2010 through January 2013) to 54% postpolicy (February 2013 through June 2015) (p < 0.001). In an adjusted model, the odds of 2-year LDF increased by 22% per year prepolicy (p < 0.001) and 23% per year postpolicy (p < 0.001). Despite these annual increases in LDF, only 43% (87/202) of centers met the OPTN/UNOS-required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year LDF thresholds for LKDs who donated in 2013. These findings motivate further evaluation of LDF barriers and the optimal approaches to capturing outcomes after living donation.
PMID: 28510355
ISSN: 1600-6143
CID: 5152032