4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Factors Determining Physical and Mental Quality of Life of Living Kidney Donors in Taiwan

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 745-748

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2015.12.060

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Living-donor kidney transplantation has a positive influence on recipients' life expectancy and improves quality of life for patients with end-stage renal disease compared with dialysis patients. Evaluation of the physical and mental quality of life for donors can promote positive perceptions about donation and help potential donors in their decision-making process. The aim of this study was to explore the predictive factors of quality of life for living kidney donors. Methods. A cross-sectional and descriptive design was used, and the study was conducted from January to July 2013. The donors were a convenience sample of 34 participants who had undergone kidney transplant surgery >1 year earlier. Results. The results showed that kidney donors had a low to moderate physical and mental quality of life. Multiple regression analysis revealed that financial concerns and anxiety explained 27.8% of the total variance of quality of life in the physical component. Anxiety and paid work explained 61.4% of the total variance of quality of life in the mental component. Conclusions. After renal transplantation, living kidney donors experienced low to moderate quality of life. Because donors are family members (siblings, sons or daughters, spouses, or parents), monthly family income is a significant issue that influences both the decision to donate and quality of life after transplantation. Our findings suggest that pre-transplantation assessment must include social workers as part of the health care team to evaluate the impact of a donor's financial status on post-transplantation quality of life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available