Skip to content

Beliefs of UK Transplant Recipients about Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation: Findings from a Multicentre Questionnaire-Based Case–Control Study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Clinical Medicine
Issue number1
DateAccepted/In press - 19 Dec 2019
DatePublished (current) - 21 Dec 2019


Differing beliefs about the acceptability of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) have been proposed as explaining age, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in their uptake. We investigated whether certain patient groups hold beliefs incompatible with LDKTs. This questionnaire-based case–control study was based at 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants were adults transplanted between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2017. LDKT recipients were compared to deceased-donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients. Beliefs were determined by the direction and strength of agreement with ten statements. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association between beliefs and LDKT versus DDKT. Sex, age, ethnicity, religion, and education were investigated as predictors of beliefs. A total of 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). DDKT and LDKT recipients responded in the same direction for 9/10 statements. A greater strength of agreement with statements concerning the ‘positive psychosocial effects’ of living kidney donation predicted having an LDKT over a DDKT. Older age, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) group ethnicity, and having a religion other than Christianity were associated with greater degree of uncertainty regarding a number of statements, but there was no evidence that individuals in these groups hold strong beliefs against living kidney donation and transplantation. Interventions should address uncertainty, to increase LDKT activity in these groups.

    Research areas

  • living kidney donation, living-donor kidnet transplantation, beliefs, inequity

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via MDPI at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 247 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups