Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up. METHODS:To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021. RESULTS:We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access. CONCLUSION:This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

BACKGROUND:Upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA; hand transplantation) is a reconstructive treatment option for patients with UE loss. Approximately 37 UE VCAs have been performed in the United States to date; thus, little is known about long-term psychosocial outcomes and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. To make an informed treatment decision, patients must understand the procedure, risks, and potential benefits of UE VCA. However, few educational resources are publicly available providing unbiased, comprehensive information about UE VCA. OBJECTIVE:This paper described the development of a neutral, and accessible, educational website supporting informed decision-making about UE VCA as a treatment option for individuals with UE amputations. METHODS:Website content development was informed by 9 focus groups conducted with individuals with UE amputations at 3 study sites. After initial website development, we conducted usability testing to identify ways to improve navigability, design, content, comprehension, and cultural sensitivity. Participants were administered the After-Scenario Questionnaire to assess user performance after completing navigational tasks, System Usability Scale to measure the perceived usability of the website, and Net Promoter Score to measure user satisfaction. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using rapid thematic analysis. RESULTS:A total of 44 individuals with UE amputations participated in focus groups (n=37, 84%) and usability testing (n=14, 32%). Most participants in the focus groups and usability testing were male (24/37, 65% and 11/14, 79%, respectively) and White (27/37, 73% and 9/14, 64%, respectively), had unilateral limb loss (22/37, 59% and 12/14, 86%, respectively), and had mean ages of 48 (SD 9.2) and 50 (SD 12.0) years, respectively. Focus group results are organized into accessibility, website design, website development, website tone and values, sitemap, terminology, images and videos, and tables and graphics. Usability testing revealed that participants had a positive impression of the website. The mean After-Scenario Questionnaire score of 1.3 to 2.3 across task scenarios indicated high satisfaction with website usability, the mean System Usability Scale score of 88.9 indicated user satisfaction with website usability, and the mean Net Promoter Score of 9.6 indicated that users were enthusiastic and would likely refer individuals to the website. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest that our educational website, Within Reach, provides neutral, patient-centered information and may be a useful resource about UE VCA for individuals with UE amputations, their families, and health care professionals. Health care professionals may inform UE VCA candidates about Within Reach to supplement current VCA education processes. Within Reach serves as a resource about treatment options for patients preparing for scheduled or recovering from traumatic UE amputations. Future research should assess whether Within Reach improves knowledge about UE VCA and enhances informed decision-making about UE VCA as a treatment option.

BACKGROUND:Medication non-adherence contributes to post-transplant graft rejection and failure; however, limited knowledge about the reasons for non-adherence hinders the development of interventions to improve adherence. We conducted focus groups with solid organ transplant recipients regarding overlooked challenges in the process of transplant medication self-management and examined their adherence strategies and perceptions towards the post-transplant medication regimen. METHODS:We conducted four focus groups with n = 31 total adult transplant recipients. Participants had received kidney, liver, or combined liver/kidney transplant at Johns Hopkins Hospital between 2014 and 2019. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed inductively, using the constant comparative method. RESULTS:Responses generally fell into two major categories: (1) barriers to adherence and (2) "adherence landscape". We define the former as factors directly labeled as barriers to adherence by participants and the latter as factors that heavily influence the post-transplant medication self-management process. CONCLUSIONS:We propose a shift in the way healthcare providers and researchers, address the question of medication non-adherence. Rather than asking why patients are non-adherent, we suggest that constructing and understanding patients' "adherence landscape" will provide an optimal way to align the goals of patients and providers and boost health outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Despite the societal benefits of live kidney donation, Black donors may be more likely than White donors to develop hypertension (HTN) and chronic kidney disease after donation. Among live kidney donors diagnosed with post-donation HTN, little is known about potential racial/ethnic differences in HTN self-care behaviors and perceived susceptibility to developing kidney disease. METHODS:We ascertained electronic medical records and phone survey data from live donors enrolled in the multi-center Wellness and Health Outcomes of LivE Donors (WHOLE-Donor) Hypertension Care Study between May 2013 and April 2020. Using multivariable logistic regression models performed January through June 2021, we examined potential associations of donor race/ethnicity with perceived susceptibility to kidney disease and self-care behaviors (ie, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System measure assessing self-reported actions to control high blood pressure). RESULTS:The study included 318 US-based live kidney donors who developed post-donation HTN (57.6% female; 78.9% White; 18.6% Black; and mean age 46.7 years at donation). Black donors were equally as likely as White donors to report being moderately or strongly concerned about developing kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 1.27, 95%CI: .66, 2.14, P=.57). Donors with diabetes were more likely than those without diabetes (aOR: 2.43, 95%CI: 1.03, 5.01, P=.04), while donors aged >50 years were less likely than younger donors (aOR: .39, 95%CI: .18, .85, P=.02) to report being moderately or strongly concerned about kidney disease. Overall, 87% of donors reported taking at least one action to help control blood pressure, with no significant differences by sociodemographic factors. CONCLUSIONS:We found no substantial differences in perceived susceptibility to kidney disease among Black and White donors, despite published evidence that Black donors may experience greater risk of developing kidney disease than White donors. Behavioral interventions to enhance knowledge about future disease risk, attitudes, and self-care strategies among living kidney donors may be beneficial.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/UNASSIGNED:Living donor transplantation provides the best possible recipient outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Yet, identifying potential living donors can be a laborious and resource intensive task that heavily relies on the recipient's means and social network. Social media has evolved to become a key tool in helping to bring recipients and potential living donors together given its ease of utilization, widespread access, and improved recipient's comfort with public solicitation. However, in the USA, formal guidelines to direct the use of social media in this context are lacking. RECENT FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED: = 125/174, 72%) indicated that their program provided education to use social media to identify potential living donors and most programs tracking referral source confirmed an increase utilization over time. The use of social media was compounded with program and recipient's challenges including concerns about privacy, inadequate technology access, and knowledge gaps. In this review, we discuss the results of this national survey and recent literature, and provide suggestions to inform program practices and guidance provided to patients wishing to use social media to identify potential living donors. SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:Transplant programs should become competent in the use of social media for potential living donor identification to empower patients interested in using this tool. Social media education should be provided to all patients regardless of voiced interest and, when appropriate, revisited at multiple time points. Programs should consider developing a "team of experts" that can provide focused education and support to patients embarking in social media living donor campaigns. Care should be taken to avoid exacerbating disparities in access to living donor transplantation. Effective and timely guidance to patients in the use of social media could enhance the identification of potential living donors. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION/UNASSIGNED:The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00382-1.

This commentary discusses 13 unique stories by patients who have received an organ transplant. Their stories are diverse and capture the essence of the highs and lows on the journey to needing, receiving, and living with an organ transplant. The stories speak to immeasurable gratitude, and all provide insight into how we might support more fair and equitable organ transplant system policies in the US and abroad. This commentary suggests that a narrative policy framework in organ transplantation can have a positive influence as we formulate, adopt, and implement transplant policy.

Racial and ethnic disparities persist in access to the liver transplantation (LT) waiting list; however, there is limited knowledge about underlying system-level factors that may be responsible for these disparities. Given the complex nature of LT candidate evaluation, a human factors and systems engineering approach may provide insights. We recruited participants from the LT teams (coordinators, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers, dieticians, pharmacists, leadership) at two major LT centers. From December 2020 to July 2021, we performed ethnographic observations (participant-patient appointments, committee meetings) and semistructured interviews (N = 54 interviews, 49 observation hours). Based on findings from this multicenter, multimethod qualitative study combined with the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (a human factors and systems engineering model for health care), we created a conceptual framework describing how transplant work system characteristics and other external factors may improve equity in the LT evaluation process. Participant perceptions about listing disparities described external factors (e.g., structural racism, ambiguous national guidelines, national quality metrics) that permeate the LT evaluation process. Mechanisms identified included minimal transplant team diversity, implicit bias, and interpersonal racism. A lack of resources was a common theme, such as social workers, transportation assistance, non-English-language materials, and time (e.g., more time for education for patients with health literacy concerns). Because of the minimal data collection or center feedback about disparities, participants felt uncomfortable with and unadaptable to unwanted outcomes, which perpetuate disparities. We proposed transplant center-level solutions (i.e., including but not limited to training of staff on health equity) to modifiable barriers in the clinical work system that could help patient navigation, reduce disparities, and improve access to care. Our findings call for an urgent need for transplant centers, national societies, and policy makers to focus efforts on improving equity (tailored, patient-centered resources) using the science of human factors and systems engineering.