Advertisement

Greater community vulnerability is associated with poor living donor navigator program fidelity

      Abstract

      Background

      Community-level factors contribute to living donor kidney transplantation disparities but may also influence the interventions aimed to mitigate these disparities. The Living Donor Navigator Program was designed to separate the advocacy role from the patient in need of transplantation—friends/family are encouraged to participate as the patients’ advocates to identify living donors, though some of the patients participate alone as self-advocates. Self-advocates have a lower living donor kidney transplantation likelihood compared to the patients with an advocate. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the patients’ community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy as a surrogate for program fidelity.

      Methods

      This single-center, retrospective study included 110 Living Donor Navigator participants (April 2017–June 2019). Program fidelity was assessed using the participants’ advocacy status. Measures of community vulnerability were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy.

      Results

      Of the 110 participants, 19% (n = 21) were self-advocates. For every 10% increase in community-level vulnerability, patients had 17% higher risk of self-advocacy (adjusted relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.03–1.32, P = .01). Living in areas with greater unemployment (adjusted relative risk: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.04–1.33, P = .01), single-parent households (adjusted relative risk: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–1.42, P = .006), minority population (adjusted relative risk: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.04–1.55, P = .02), or no-vehicle households (adjusted relative risk: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.02–1.35, P = .02) were associated with increased risk of self-advocacy.

      Conclusion

      Having a greater community-level vulnerability was associated with poor Living Donor Navigator Program fidelity. The potential barriers identified using the Social Vulnerability Index may direct resource allocation and program refinement to optimize program fidelity and efficacy for all participants.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Orandi B.J.
        • Luo X.
        • Massie A.B.
        • et al.
        Survival benefit with kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 940-950
        • Purnell T.S.
        • Luo X.
        • Cooper L.A.
        • et al.
        Association of race and ethnicity with live donor kidney transplantation in the United States from 1995 to 2014.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 49-61
        • Purnell T.
        • Xu P.
        • Leca N.
        • Hall Y.
        Racial differences in determinants of live donor kidney transplantation in the United States.
        Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 1557-1565
        • Gore J.L.
        • Danovitch G.M.
        • Litwin M.S.
        • Pham P.T.
        • Singer J.S.
        Disparities in the utilization of live donor renal transplantation.
        Am J Transplant. 2009; 9: 1124-1133
        • Killian A.C.
        • Shelton B.
        • MacLennan P.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of community-level vulnerability and racial disparities in living donor kidney transplant.
        JAMA Surg. 2021; 156: 1120-1129
        • Bailey Z.D.
        • Krieger N.
        • Agénor M.
        • Graves J.
        • Linos N.
        • Bassett M.T.
        Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 1453-1463
        • Garonzik-Wang J.M.
        • Berger J.C.
        • Ros R.L.
        • et al.
        Live donor champion: finding live kidney donors by separating the advocate from the patient.
        Transplantation. 2012; 93: 1147-1150
        • Locke J.E.
        • Reed R.D.
        • Kumar V.
        • et al.
        Enhanced advocacy and health systems training through patient navigation increases access to living-donor kidney transplantation.
        Transplantation. 2020; 104: 122-129
        • LaPointe Rudow D.
        • Geatrakas S.
        • Armenti J.
        • et al.
        Increasing living donation by implementing the Kidney Coach Program.
        Clin Transplant. 2019; 33e13471
        • Rodrigue J.R.
        • Paek M.J.
        • Egbuna O.
        • et al.
        Making house calls increases living donor inquiries and evaluations for blacks on the kidney transplant waiting list.
        Transplantation. 2014; 98: 979-986
        • Kumar K.
        • King E.A.
        • Muzaale A.D.
        • et al.
        A smartphone app for increasing live organ donation.
        Am J Transplant. 2016; 16: 3548-3553
        • Waterman A.D.
        • Peipert J.D.
        An explore transplant group randomized controlled education trial to increase dialysis patients’ decision-making and pursuit of transplantation.
        Prog Transplant. 2018; 28: 174-183
        • Killian A.C.
        • Reed R.D.
        • Carter A.
        • et al.
        Self-advocacy is associated with lower likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation.
        Am J Surg. 2021; 222: 36-41
        • Carroll C.
        • Patterson M.
        • Wood S.
        • Booth A.
        • Rick J.
        • Balain S.
        A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity.
        Implement Sci. 2007; 2: 40
        • SAS Institute Inc
        Maps and Geocoding.
        StreetLookupData, 2018
        • Massengill D.
        • Odom E.
        PROC GEOCODE: finding locations outside the U.S.
        • United States Census Bureau
        Understanding geographic identifiers (GEOIDs).
        2021
        • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
        CDC SVI 2018 Documentation.
        2018
        • Flanagan B.E.
        • Gregory E.W.
        • Hallisey E.J.
        • Heitgerd J.L.
        • Lewis B.
        A social vulnerability index for disaster management.
        J Homel Secur Emerg Manag. 2011; 8: 1-24
        • Flanagan B.E.
        • Hallisey E.J.
        • Adams E.
        • Lavery A.
        Measuring community vulnerability to natural and anthropogenic hazards: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index.
        J Environ Health. 2018; 80: 34-36
        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
        • Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program
        CDC/STSDR Social Vulnerability Index 2018 Database Alabama.
        2018
        • Zou G.
        A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159: 702-706
        • Benjamini Y.
        • Hochberg Y.
        Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.
        J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995; 57: 289-300
        • Vittinghoff E.
        • McCulloch C.E.
        Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 165: 710-718
        • Shi L.
        • Stevens G.D.
        • Faed P.
        • Tsai J.
        Rethinking vulnerable populations in the United States: an introduction to a general model of vulnerability.
        Harvard Health Policy Rev. 2008; 9: 43-48
        • Aday L.A.
        At risk in America: the health and health care needs of vulnerable populations in the United States.
        Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (CA)2002
        • Grabovschi C.
        • Loignon C.
        • Fortin M.
        Mapping the concept of vulnerability related to health care disparities: a scoping review.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13: 94
        • Shi L.
        • Stevens G.
        • Lebrun L.
        • Faed P.
        • Tsai J.
        Enhancing the measurement of health disparities for vulnerable populations.
        J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008; : S45-S52
        • Rapp K.S.
        • Volpe V.V.
        • Neukrug H.
        State-level sexism and women's health care access in the United States: differences by race/ethnicity, 2014-2019.
        Am J Public Health. 2021; 111: 1796-1805
        • Gillespie A.
        • Gardiner H.M.
        • Fink E.L.
        • Reese P.P.
        • Gadegbeku C.A.
        • Obradovic Z.
        Does sex, race, and the size of a kidney transplant candidate’s social network affect the number of living donor requests? A multi-center social network analysis of patients on the kidney transplant waitlist.
        Transplantation. 2020; 104: 2632-2641
        • Gill J.
        • Dong J.
        • Rose C.
        • Johnston O.
        • Landsberg D.
        • Gill J.
        The effect of race and income on living kidney donation in the United States.
        J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013; 24: 1872-1879
        • Purnell T.S.
        • Hall Y.N.
        • Boulware L.E.
        Understanding and overcoming barriers to living kidney donation among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States.
        Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2012; 19: 244-251
        • Hays R.
        • Rodrigue J.R.
        • Cohen D.
        • et al.
        Financial neutrality for living organ donors: reasoning, rationale, definitions, and implementation strategies.
        Am J Transplant. 2016; 16: 1973-1981
        • Harden S.M.
        • Smith M.L.
        • Ory M.G.
        • Smith-Ray R.L.
        • Estabrooks P.A.
        • Glasgow R.E.
        RE-AIM in clinical, community, and corporate settings: perspectives, strategies, and recommendations to enhance public health impact.
        Front Public Health. 2018; 6: 71
        • Carter A.
        • Reed R.
        • Hendricks D.
        • Baldwin K.
        • Kale A.
        • Locke J.
        Geographical disparities in transplantation: exploring the association between county health rankings and an individual’s access to transplantation [ATC Abstract C-243].
        Am J Transplant. 2020; : 20
        • Nastasi B.K.
        • Hitchcock J.H.
        Mixed methods research and culture-specific interventions: program design and evaluation.
        SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (CA)2015

      Linked Article