Faculty Bibliography

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.

BACKGROUND:The use of large-scale data and artificial intelligence (AI) to support complex transplantation decisions is in its infancy. Transplant candidate decision-making, which relies heavily on subjective assessment (ie, high variability), provides a ripe opportunity for AI-based clinical decision support (CDS). However, AI-CDS for transplant applications must consider important concerns regarding fairness (ie, health equity). The objective of this study was to use human-centered design methods to elicit providers' perceptions of AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions. METHODS:In this multicenter qualitative study conducted from December 2020 to July 2021, we performed semistructured interviews with 53 multidisciplinary liver transplant providers from 2 transplant centers. We used inductive coding and constant comparison analysis of interview data. RESULTS:Analysis yielded 6 themes important for the design of fair AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions: (1) transparency in the creators behind the AI-CDS and their motivations; (2) understanding how the AI-CDS uses data to support recommendations (ie, interpretability); (3) acknowledgment that AI-CDS could mitigate emotions and biases; (4) AI-CDS as a member of the transplant team, not a replacement; (5) identifying patient resource needs; and (6) including the patient's role in the AI-CDS. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, providers interviewed were cautiously optimistic about the potential for AI-CDS to improve clinical and equitable outcomes for patients. These findings can guide multidisciplinary developers in the design and implementation of AI-CDS that deliberately considers health equity.

Background. Although upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) aims to improve quality of life, relatively few have been performed worldwide to support evidence-based treatment and informed decision-making. Methods. We qualitatively examined factors contributing to anticipated and actual decision-making about UE VCA and perceptions of the elements of informed consent among people with UE amputations, and UE VCA candidates, participants, and recipients through in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Results. Fifty individuals participated; most were male (78%) and had a mean age of 45 y and a unilateral amputation (84%). One-third (35%) were "a lot"or "completely"willing to pursue UE VCA. UE VCA decision-making themes included the utility of UE VCA, psychosocial impact of UE VCA and amputation on individuals' lives, altruism, and anticipated burden of UE VCA on lifestyle. Most respondents who underwent UE VCA evaluation (n = 8/10) perceived having no reasonable treatment alternatives. Generally, respondents (n = 50) recognized the potential for familial, societal, cultural, medical, and self-driven pressures to pursue UE VCA among individuals with amputations. Some (n = 9/50, 18%) reported personally feeling "a little,""somewhat,""a lot,"or "completely"pressured to pursue UE VCA. Respondents recommended that individuals be informed about the option of UE VCA near the amputation date. Conclusions. Our study identified psychosocial and other factors affecting decision-making about UE VCA, which should be addressed to enhance informed consent. Study participants' perceptions and preferences about UE VCA suggest re-examination of assumptions guiding the UE VCA clinical evaluation process.

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: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.