Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36242025›Full record

ArticleBMC nephrology2022

Potential living kidney donors' positive experiences of an information letter from healthcare: a descriptive qualitative study.

Eva Lagging, Kjerstin Larsson, Jonas Wadström, Linda Gyllström Krekula, Annika Tibell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eva LaggingCenter for Health Care Ethics, LIME, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. eva.lagging@ki.se.
Kjerstin LarssonDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Health equity and working life, Uppsala University, 752 37, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jonas WadströmDepartment of Transplantation Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 141 86, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Linda Gyllström KrekulaCenter for Health Care Ethics, LIME, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Annika TibellCenter for Health Care Ethics, LIME, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients who need a live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) must often ask potential donors (PLDs) themselves. This is a difficult task and healthcare could unburden them by making this first contact, ensuring also that PLDs receive correct information. We investigated how PLDs experience receiving a letter from healthcare about LDKT, live kidney donation, and inviting them to meet with professionals to get more information.

methodsThe letter (LD-letter) was sent to a cohort of 46 individuals, from which a purposeful sample of 15 were interviewed using a semi-structured guide covering their experience of the letter, views on being approached by healthcare, and opinions on style and content. Interviews were analyzed using conventional inductive analysis.

resultsWe identified three categories of experiences: Category (1) Reflections on receiving the letter, contains three subcategories relating to how the letter did not induce pressure to donate, did not affect the PLD's relationship with the patient with kidney disease, and made the letter-receiver feel important in the transplant process; Category (2) The letter creates clarification and trust, also contains three subcategories, relating to how it clarified the voluntariness of donation and neutrality of healthcare providers with respect to the PLD's decision, elucidated the patient with kidney disease's current stage of disease (where transplantation was approaching), and unburdened patients from the responsibility of contacting PLDs on their own; Category (3) Opinions and suggestions about the letter and further communication, with four subcategories, relating to preference of a letter as the first step for communication about LDKT, suggestions on style and content, views on following up the letter, and how open meetings about LDKT were an important information source. Furthermore, 80% of the interviewees found the letter's information comprehensive, 67% found it easy to read and respectful, and 86% rated it as good or very good.

conclusionPotential donors prefer and recommend a letter as the first step for communication regarding LD. The LD-letter unburdens patients from the task of asking PLDs and stresses the voluntariness of donation, does not leave PLDs feeling coerced or lead to negative effects in their relationship with the patient.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationLiving DonorsDelivery of Health CareHumansKidneyQualitative ResearchHealthcareInformationLiving kidney donorQualitativeRecruitment phaseTransplantation

Identifiers

PMID36242025
PMCPMC9569060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.