Premium
Understanding the sex disparity in living kidney donation
Author(s) -
Prasad G. V. Ramesh
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.13015
Subject(s) - donation , kidney donation , medicine , distress , empathy , kidney transplantation , quality of life (healthcare) , organ donation , health care , psychology , family medicine , social psychology , kidney , clinical psychology , transplantation , psychiatry , nursing , surgery , economics , economic growth
Living donors are the preferred source of organs for kidney transplantation, which is the treatment modality of choice for end‐stage kidney disease. Health care systems widely promote living kidney donation. However, women are consistently overrepresented among living donors. The reasons behind the sex‐based disparity in living kidney donation remain poorly understood. Compared to women, men possess a greater amount of kidney function, and the higher deceased donation rate among men reflects their higher overall kidney quality. A plausible medical explanation for the sex‐based disparity in living kidney donation includes an uncompromising emphasis on preserving donor health, with less emphasis placed on organ quality, which is the main criterion in deceased donor selection. On the other hand, consent to deceased donation is also greater in women, indicating their greater desire to donate even though fewer women actually become deceased donors. Therefore, nonmedical reasons for the sex disparity in living donation must be sought. Increased empathic distress or emotional memory; a greater sense of responsibility, urgency, and impulsiveness with increased reaction to empathy; a different body image; and a different social status may all contribute to greater living kidney donation in women. Economic inequity may be the singular explanation when personal worth links to economic worth. To better understand the sex disparity in living kidney donation, we need better data on the reasons behind both nondonation and donor rejection after evaluation in clinical practice. Nondirected living kidney donation provides unique opportunities to minimize factors such as emotional distress, empathy, and impulsiveness. More liberal acceptance criteria for donors with isolated medical abnormalities and testing legitimate donor reimbursement strategies based on actual income levels rather than a fixed amount can assist in both ascertaining the reasons behind the sex disparity in living kidney donation and increasing overall living kidney donation rates.