Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2018 Jun 30;8(6):e020906.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020906.

Development and feasibility of a guided and tailored internet-based cognitive-behavioural intervention for kidney donors and kidney donor candidates

Lieke Wirken  1   2 , Henriët van Middendorp  1   2 , Christina W Hooghof  3 , Tamara E Bremer  1   2 , Sabine P F Hopman  3 , Karlijn A M I van der Pant  4 , Andries J Hoitsma  3 , Luuk B Hilbrands  3 , Andrea W M Evers  1   2
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Development and feasibility of a guided and tailored internet-based cognitive-behavioural intervention for kidney donors and kidney donor candidates

Lieke Wirken et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: Living donor kidney transplantation is currently the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. A subgroup of the kidney donor population experiences adjustment problems during or after the donation procedure (eg, anxiety or fatigue). There is a need for evidence-based interventions that decrease donation-related difficulties before or after donation. In the current study, a guided and tailored internet-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (ICBT) intervention for donors and donor candidates was developed and the feasibility and perceived effectiveness were evaluated.

Design: Pilot study including qualitative and quantitative research methods for intervention development and evaluation.

Setting: Living kidney donor population of two Dutch transplantation centres.

Participants: Donors and healthcare professionals participated in focus group interviews conducted to identify intervention themes and to map attitudes towards internet-based interventions. In a pilot feasibility study, 99 donors and donor candidates participated, of whom 38 completed the screening. Eight donors or donor candidates with a risk profile (ie, impaired mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL)) received and evaluated the intervention.

Interventions: A guided and tailored ICBT intervention for donors and donor candidates was developed. Donation-related treatment modules, assignments and psychoeducation were integrated within an existing disease-generic ICBT intervention.

Outcome measures: HRQoL, anxiety and depression were assessed before and after the ICBT intervention. Additional questionnaires were included to identify specific problem areas of donor functioning to tailor the ICBT intervention to the donor's needs.

Results: Different intervention themes were derived from the focus group interviews (eg, physical limitations, and donation-specific emotional and social-relational problems). Participants were satisfied about the intervention content (7.7±0.8 on a 0-10 scale) and the therapeutic relationship (4.4±0.6 on a 1-5 scale), and indicated an improvement on domains of their treatment goals (3.2±0.7 on a 1-4 scale).

Conclusion: This study showed positive evaluations concerning both feasibility and perceived effectiveness of the tailored ICBT intervention in kidney donors and donor candidates, in line with previous studies using comparable ICBT treatment protocols in other populations. Future research should examine the possibilities of integrating the intervention into psychosocial care for kidney donors.

Keywords: cognitive behavioral therapy; ehealth; internet-based intervention; living kidney donors; quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AWME, HvM and LW received research grants from the Dutch Kidney Foundation. LBH reports personal fees from Novartis and Chiesi (scientific advisory board). All other authors have no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Intervention procedure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Port FK, Wolfe RA, Mauger EA, et al. . Comparison of survival probabilities for dialysis patients vs cadaveric renal transplant recipients. JAMA 1993;270:1339–43. 10.1001/jama.1993.03510110079036 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schnuelle P, Lorenz D, Trede M, et al. . Impact of renal cadaveric transplantation on survival in end-stage renal failure: evidence for reduced mortality risk compared with hemodialysis during long-term follow-up. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998;9:2135–41. - PubMed
    1. Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G, et al. . Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. Am J Transplant 2011;11:2093–109. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03686.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wirken L, van Middendorp H, Hooghof CW, et al. . The course and predictors of health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Transplant 2015;15:3041–54. 10.1111/ajt.13453 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gross CR, Messersmith EE, Hong BA, et al. . Health-related quality of life in kidney donors from the last five decades: results from the RELIVE study. Am J Transplant 2013;13:2924–34. 10.1111/ajt.12434 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources