Premium
Financial, vocational, and interpersonal impact of living liver donation
Author(s) -
Holtzman Susan,
Adcock Lesley,
Dubay Derek A.,
Therapondos George,
Kashfi Arash,
Greenwood Sarah,
Renner Eberhard L.,
Grant David R.,
Levy Gary A.,
Abbey Susan E.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
liver transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.814
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1527-6473
pISSN - 1527-6465
DOI - 10.1002/lt.21852
Subject(s) - donation , psychosocial , medicine , logistic regression , liver transplantation , interpersonal communication , transplantation , family medicine , psychiatry , psychology , social psychology , economics , economic growth
The ability to inform prospective donors of the psychosocial risks of living liver donation is currently limited by the scant empirical literature. The present study was designed to examine donor perceptions of the impact of donation on financial, vocational, and interpersonal life domains and identify demographic and clinical factors related to longer recovery times and greater life interference. A total of 143 donors completed a retrospective questionnaire that included a standardized measure of life interference [Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS)] and additional questions regarding the perceived impact of donation. Donor IIRS scores suggested that donors experience a relatively low level of life interference due to donation [1.60 ± 0.72, with a possible range of 1 (“not very much” interference) to 7 (“very much” interference)]. However, approximately 1 in 5 donors reported that donating was a significant financial burden. Logistic regression analysis revealed that donors with a psychiatric diagnosis at or prior to donation took longer to return to their self‐reported predonation level of functioning (odds ratio = 3.78, P = 0.016). Medical complications were unrelated to self‐reported recovery time. Multiple regression analysis revealed 4 independent predictors of greater life interference: less time since donation ( b = 0.11, P < 0.001), income lower than CAD$100,000 ( b = 0.28, P = 0.038), predonation concerns about the donation process ( b = 0.24, P = 0.008), and the perception that the recipient is not caring for the new liver ( b = 0.12, P = 0.031). In conclusion, life interference due to living liver donation appears to be relatively low. Donors should be made aware of risk factors for greater life disruptions post‐surgery and of the potential financial burden of donation. Liver Transpl 15:1435–1442, 2009. © 2009 AASLD.