A peer-based intervention to educate liver transplant candidates about living donor liver transplantation

✍ Scribed by Samantha DeLair; Thomas Hugh Feeley; Hyunjung Kim; Juan del Rio Martin; Leona Kim-Schluger; Dianne LaPointe Rudow; Mark Orloff; Patricia A. Sheiner; Lewis Teperman

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2010
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 163 KB
• Volume: 16
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1527-6465
• DOI: 10.1002/lt.21937

✦ Synopsis

The number of liver donors has not measurably increased since 2004 and has begun to decrease. Although many waitlisted patients may be suitable candidates to receive a living donor graft, they are often reticent to discuss living donation with close friends and family, partly because of a lack of knowledge about donor health and quality of life outcomes after donation. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of an educational intervention that uses testimonials and self-report data from living donors in New York State. The study had an independent sample pretest (n ϭ 437) and posttest (n ϭ 338) design with posttest, between-subjects comparison for intervention exposure. All waitlisted patients at 5 liver transplant centers in New York were provided a peer-based educational brochure and DVD either by mail or at the clinic. The outcome measures were liver candidates' knowledge and self-efficacy to discuss living donation with family and friends. The number and proportion of individuals who presented to centers for living liver donation evaluation were also measured. Liver transplant candidates' self-efficacy to discuss living donation and their knowledge increased from the pretest period to the posttest period. Those exposed to the peer-based intervention reported significantly greater knowledge, a greater likelihood of discussing donation, and increased self-efficacy in comparison with those not exposed to the intervention. The results did not differ by age, length of time on the waiting list, education, or ethnicity. In comparison with the preintervention period, living donation increased 42%, and the number of individuals who presented for donation evaluation increased by 74%.