Efficacy of Educational Interventions in Improving Measures of Living-donor Kidney Transplantation Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis : Transplantation

Journal Logo

Original Clinical Science—General

Efficacy of Educational Interventions in Improving Measures of Living-donor Kidney Transplantation Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sandal, Shaifali MD1,2; Dendukuri, Nandini PhD3; Wang, Shouao MSc3; Guadagno, Elena MLIS4; Ekmekjian, Taline MLIS4; Alam, Ahsan MD1,2

Author Information
Transplantation 103(12):p 2566-2575, December 2019. | DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002715



Living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients when compared with deceased-donor recipients have superior patient and graft survival.1 LDKT has the potential to provide early access to transplantation. In addition, LDKT recipients experience lower short-term rejection rates and have an improved quality of life.2-4 Despite these benefits, LDKT rates at many transplant centers are low and have stagnated across North America.1

Several barriers in terms of access to LDKT are well recognized. Two major patient-level barriers are recipient’s discomfort to discuss issues related to donation with potential donors and lack of knowledge about LDKT.5-13 Hence, some transplant and dialysis centers have implemented educational interventions to address them, for example, deploying a pamphlet or conducting a teaching session. Recently, a scoping review and a narrative review summarized these interventions and highlighted several gaps in knowledge and lack of evidence of efficacy.14,15 Deploying resources to interventions that have minimal or no effect was questioned; although, interventions conducted at the home of recipients and in the presence of their social networks were thought to be promising.14 Home interventions are more personal, interactive, and direct and have the potential to reach a much larger pool of potential donors.10,12,14,16-18 However, conducting and sustaining this intervention long-term might be challenging as it is time consuming, labor intensive, and costly.

Given this, the aim of our analysis was to systematically review studies that implemented educational interventions to increase measures of LDKT activity. In particular, we wanted to analyze if these interventions were effective in improving LDKT rates, donor evaluations, donor contact/inquiry, total transplants (living and deceased donor), knowledge scores, and pursuit behaviors.



An educational intervention was defined as any tool implemented to increase living donation. An intervention could be, but not limited to, a brochure, pamphlet, video, website, teaching session, or smartphone application. It was designed specifically to educate participants on living donation. Thus, an education intervention could be decision/teaching aids (DTAs) that are evidence-based tools designed to help participants in making specific choices.15 Interventions could also be DTA with personalized sessions (DTAP). This was further subdivided into small group sessions (SG) where multiple recipients with their social networks met at the transplant center, and 1:1 where an intervention was directed exclusively at one recipient and/or their social network either at home or at the transplant center. To summarize, an intervention could be a DTA alone, DTAP-SG, or DTAP-1:1. Comparator could be another intervention or nonspecific education (NSE). Social networks were defined as friends and family members of the recipient.


Outcomes of interest were as follows: number of LDKT, number of recipients who had at least one donor who started the LDKT evaluation, number of recipients who had at least one donor contact at the transplant center to inquire about donation, total number of transplants (living- and deceased-donor kidney transplants), and mean change in knowledge scores pre- and postintervention. We included total transplants, as some have described increased rates of deceased-donor kidney transplants with these educational interventions.13 Education interventions could improve recipient awareness of the benefits of transplantation in general, which could lead to increased overall transplantation, independent of LDKT. Thus, we wanted to capture the total number of transplants. Finally, we also performed a descriptive analysis of LDKT pursuit behaviors, such as comfort, willingness, and the attitude postintervention.

Study Selection

We excluded studies pertaining to the general public, policy, or center-level changes, that is, participating in a paired kidney exchange program or conducting desensitization. We excluded studies where the participants were any party other than the transplant recipient, living kidney donor candidate, and the social network. We also excluded studies specifically pertaining to increasing registration as an organ donor or whose primary goal was to increase deceased donation. Studies were excluded if there was no comparator group. Finally, published abstracts were only included if the protocol and study design had previously been published outlining the details of the intervention and the abstract summarized results in detail to allow for data extraction.

Search Strategy

The literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.19 The review was registered in Prospero (ID: CRD42018053370). Relevant studies for this review were obtained from 7 databases until November 2017. Grey literature was verified for research in progress (including clinicaltrials.gov) and conference abstracts. The search strategy combined the concepts of “Kidney Transplantation,” “Living Donors,” and “Patient Education,” found as both text words in the Title/Abstract/Keywords, and in the Subject Headings (Table S1, SDC, https://links.lww.com/TP/B725). When duplicate reporting of the same study or patient group was noted, the more updated publication was selected and duplicates were discarded. The reference articles from each identified study were reviewed to identify any additional relevant studies; however, no other reference was found.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Study eligibility was individually determined independently by 2 of the study authors (S.S. and A.A.). The studies selected for full-text analysis were then independently screened by the same 2 authors. Data extraction (Table S2, SDC, https://links.lww.com/TP/B725) was performed by 1 author (S.S.) and then verified by another (A.A). Whenever needed, we contacted the authors of the selected articles to assist with data collection. They were contacted at least twice, 1 month apart, before exclusion. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion between both authors till a consensus was reached. Assessment of bias for randomized and controlled studies was done using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias.20 Assessment of the quality of studies in observational studies was not done, given the inherent high risk of bias and lack of key information to allow bias assessment.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

For the outcomes of LDKT, LDKT evaluation, LDKT inquiry/contact, and total transplants, we estimated the risk ratio (RR) comparing the intervention and comparator groups for each study. For studies with zero outcomes in either group, we added 0.5 to the outcomes. For the outcome of knowledge, the mean differences between the intervention and comparator groups were calculated. Results were summarized in forest plots. To obtain quantitative summaries of the impact of educational interventions, we performed meta-analyses using random-effects models applying the “inverse-variance” method for weighting individual studies.21 It should be noted that though the forest plots included all studies, meta-analysis models only included those studies that used NSE as the comparator. Heterogeneity was examined using Cochran Q and I2 statistics. The I2 statistic ranges from 0% to 100%, with lower values taken to indicate lesser heterogeneity. When the P value of the Cochran Q test was <0.05, there was a statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity. Statistical analyses were implemented using the metafor package within the R Statistical software package.21 We planned a subgroup analysis comparing DTAP-1:1 at home with all other interventions for the outcome of LDKT. In addition, we planned meta-regression models to look at the impact of 2 covariates on the outcome of LDKT: the presence of social network and the presence of previous donors as a part of the educational intervention. However, due to a lack of an adequate number of studies, these analyses could not be performed.


Literature Search

The initial search found 3863 records. Once duplicates were removed within EndNote, there were 1813 references to review. We then reviewed titles and abstracts and of the remaining records, we identified 78 studies potentially eligible for full-text analysis (Figure 1).

Prisma flow diagram.

Studies Included

Full-text analysis led to 25 studies being excluded as they were out of scope to the study question. Another 19 studies were excluded as they were either conference abstracts or papers with preliminary results and follow up full-length articles or abstracts with more details were found. We were unable to perform data extraction in 6 studies.22-27 In one study, the intervention strategy was unclear,28 and in 5 studies there were no comparator groups.29-33 Seven abstracts were excluded as full-length publications were not found. One conference abstract was included, as a previous publication had detailed the study details and abstract itself provided enough data for extraction.34,35 Ultimately, 15 studies were eligible for analysis, of which 9 were randomized control trials9,13,16,17,35-45 (Figure 1).


We found the following interventions: 4 were DTA-only,37,40,41,45 3 DTAP-1:1,16,39,44 5 DTAP-SG,13,36,38,42,43 and 3 had multiple arms.9,17,35 In some studies, the comparator arm was also an intervention.17,43,44 Details are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Eight interventions included an input from previous donors, either in the form of a video or direct interaction with participants.13,35-38,40,42,45 Only some entailed coaching participants on how to approach donors.13,35,36 Nine included the recipient’s social network.9,13,16,17,37-41,44 Overall, quality across the studies was mixed and sometimes difficult to assess given key missing information within the reporting of the studies (Table 3).

Demographic and study level data of analyzed studies
Intervention and outcomes of analyzed studies
Assessment of bias for randomized controlled trials only



Eight studies reported LDKT rates.13,16,17,38,39,41,44,45 One study with a crossover design could not be included in the final analysis.16 As demonstrated in Figure 2, overall, most educational interventions tended to favor LDKT. When pooling results from studies where the comparator group was NSE, the RR of LDKT for the intervention group versus NSE was 2.54 and 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.49-4.35. There was no evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0%, P for heterogeneity = 0.68). There was no enough data to conduct a subgroup analysis comparing DTAP-1:1 at home with other interventions. However, there were 3 studies that compared DTAP-1:1 at home intervention with NSE, DTA, and DTAP-SG, and the RR for LDKT were 4.00 (95% CI, 1.41-11.36), 1.72 (95% CI, 1.12-2.64), and 1.81 (95% CI, 0.58-5.65), respectively.

Education interventions and living-donor kidney transplantation. We estimated the RR comparing intervention and comparator groups for each study. For studies with zero outcomes in either group, we added 0.5 to the outcomes. We included all available studies for a given outcome in a forest plot. However, the meta-analyses for each outcome were based only on those studies with nonspecific intervention as the control group. CI, confidence interval; DTA, decision/teaching aids; DTAP, DTA and personnel – (1:1 vs small group [SG]); LDKT, living-donor kidney transplantation; NSE, nonspecific education; RCT, randomized and controlled trial; RR, risk ratio; SG, small group sessions.

Donor Evaluation and Contact/Inquiry

Four studies reported on donor evaluation17,38,39,44 and five studies reported on donor contact/inquiry.17,38,39,42,44 Educational interventions favored both outcomes of donors initiating an evaluation and contacting the transplant center inquiring about donation. When compared with NSE, the RR of donor evaluation in the intervention group versus NSE was 3.82 (95% CI, 1.91-7.64) and donor contact/inquiry in the intervention group versus NSE was 2.41 (95% CI, 1.53-3.80). There was no evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0% for both outcomes, P for heterogeneity = 0.84 and 0.76, respectively; Figure 3).

Education interventions and donor evaluation, donor contact/inquiry, and total transplants. We estimated the RR comparing intervention and comparator groups for each study. For studies with zero outcomes in either group, we added 0.5 to the outcomes. We included all available studies for a given outcome in a forest plot. However, the meta-analyses for each outcome were based only on those studies with nonspecific intervention as the control group. CI, confidence interval; DTA, decision/teaching aids; DTAP, DTA and personnel – (1:1 vs small group [SG]); LDKT, living-donor kidney transplantation; NSE, nonspecific education; RCT, randomized and controlled trial; RR, risk ratio; SG, small group sessions.

Total Transplants

Five studies reported on deceased-donor kidney transplant rates and from which total number of transplants were ascertained.9,17,38,39,44 Education interventions targeting LDKT did not lead to higher total transplants, when compared with NSE (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.96-1.61). There was no evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0%, P for heterogeneity = 0.73; Figure 3).

LDKT Knowledge

Change in knowledge scores was captured by 10 of the 15 studies16,17,35-40,44,45 and in 6 was the primary or 1 of the primary outcomes of interest (Table 2). No uniform scale was used to measure knowledge scores. Two used the Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test, a 21-item self-report questionnaire.16,39 The remaining studies used investigator-developed questionnaires, and questions were either true or false statements and multiple-choice questions; number of questions ranged from 9 to 62. Meta-analysis was not performed given lack of a standardized questionnaire. In addition, data could not be synthesized in 3 studies as SDs were not provided.17,35,45 However, as demonstrated in Figure 4, overall educational interventions were associated with a significant increase in standardized mean difference in the knowledge scores before and after the intervention when compared with the control group (Figure 4).

Education interventions and mean change in knowledge scores before and after the intervention. The mean differences in knowledge scores were calculated. No uniform scale was used to measure knowledge scores, and data could not be synthesized in 3 studies as SDs were not provided. Meta-analysis was not performed given lack of standardized questionnaires. CI, confidence interval; DTA, decision/teaching aids; DTAP, DTA and personnel – (1:1 vs small group [SG]); MD, mean difference; NSE, nonspecific education; RCT, randomized and controlled trial; SG, small group sessions.

LDKT Pursuit Behaviors

This was the most prominent outcome studied: 12 studies analyzed several different LDKT pursuit behaviors (Table 2).9,16,17,35,36,38-40,42-44 These included pursuit behaviors such as considering LDKT, endorsing LDKT, readiness to pursue LDKT, attitude toward LDKT, self-efficacy, willingness to pursue or accept LDKT, discussion with potential donors, frequency of communication with potential donors, and comfort with pursuing LDKT. In 6 studies, it was the primary or one of the primary outcomes of interest.9,16,36,39,40,43 Analysis ranged from assessing behaviors using yes/no questions or grading answers on a scale.13,17,36,38,44 Some used robust theoretical models to analyze these behaviors such as the Transtheoretical Model and Stages of Change, and the Attitude-Social Influence-Efficacy model.16,35,39,43 In 8 studies, some, if not all, behaviors improved favorably with various LDKT interventions.9,13,16,17,35,40,42,44 In 2 studies, outcomes were different based on the behavior assessed.17,40 Four studies reported no statistically significant change in these behaviors.36,38,39,43 Interestingly, in some studies, no significant changes were reported among recipients; however, when accounting for all attendees, significant changes in attitudes were noted.13,16,17,39


This systematic review reports that educational interventions implemented to increase measures of LDKT activity were effective. When compared with NSE, an intervention targeting education related to living donation was associated with 2.5 higher probability of LDKT, 3.8 higher probability of donor evaluation, and 2.4 higher probability of donor contact. It was also noted that 67% of these studies reported favorable changes in LDKT pursuit behaviors and in most studies significantly higher change in knowledge scores was noted in the intervention group. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of educational interventions in improving LDKT rates and other measures of LDKT activity.

Most dialysis and transplant centers vary in how well they inform and educate patients about LDKT and doing so is often not the standard of care.46 When done, it is nontailored and nonspecific to patients’ state of readiness, and culture and educational background.18,46 Also, NSE can be ineffective due to time constraints, inability to reach the recipient’s social network and placing the onus of finding donors on the overwhelmed recipient.18 Hence, home interventions are thought to be very promising as trained professionals can tailor education to family dynamics and promote patient advocacy and shared decision-making.14-18 However, this intervention is quite resource intensive and might not be sustainable at most dialysis and transplant centers.14,44 We report that even small interventions, such as DTA, can increase measures of LDKT activity. DTAs are designed to supplement clinician counseling and have been shown to improve knowledge, communication, and health outcomes.15 Home-based interventions may be more efficacious; however, due to the lack of available studies we cannot conclusively demonstrate this. Overall, we report that any of these interventions is superior to NSE, and this should inform decision makers at the dialysis and transplant centers.

To inform centers on the design of an educational intervention, a few observations merit discussion. First, the presence of social networks can be very influential in the communication and decision-making surrounding LDKT.13,18,47 Indeed, we report that most studies included the recipient’s social network. Second, potential donors and their recipients want to personally speak with previous donors and recipients.48 We note that 53% of the studies included previous donors narrating their experiences with LDKT. Third, coaching participants how to discuss donation with potential donors is a major barrier to LDKT.13,35,36 We note that only 20% of the studies included this strategy. Fourth, it has been suggested that even for medical personnel, shorter length of time would better suit an adult learner to ensure knowledge retention.49 Indeed, most studies had multiple, interactive, and brief sessions.9,13,16,35,37-39,44 Finally, some literature has suggested that certain patient-level factors can be used to tailor specific interventions, such as, more willingness to discuss LDKT, stage of readiness, and larger social network.18,47 During data extraction, we could not tease out these details to conduct such an analysis.

This systematic review is the first to summarize educational interventions designed to increase measures of LDKT activity. The 15 studies were published over 19 years and included studies from around the world and included patients with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. We systematically assessed the quality of these studies and quantified the data. Though the educational interventions were somewhat different across studies, we reasoned that the contents were quite similar and many were developed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.14,15 Therefore, we felt that it was reasonable to pool across studies. However, it should be noted that our pooled result was not representative of any one type of intervention but rather an aggregate across the different types of educational interventions. Some limitations of our approach deserve discussion, in particular, selection bias (Table 3). In some studies, participation was restricted by geography,17,38 language consideration,9,16,17,36 ability to use a computer,37 and physician preference.9 Overall, quality across the studies was mixed and sometimes difficult to ascertain. Only some studies investigated protocol adherence and had a quality assurance framework in place.9,37,39 For the outcome of knowledge, most studies used investigator-developed questionnaires, only a few of which had been externally validated (Figure 4). In addition, several authors acknowledged that spurious conclusions may have resulted from small study samples and shorter follow-ups38,42,45; however, by integrating them together, we hoped to have addressed some of these limitations. The small number of studies may also have limited our ability to detect heterogeneity across studies.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this review and meta-analysis have implications to both clinical practice and public health policy as there is a considerable push for LDKT. Our results suggest that even simple interventions, such as DTA, are superior to NSE in improving measures of LDKT. We recommend that these efforts be made in conjunction with other center- or policy-level interventions that could interact with or enhance LDKT. We, however, recommend that future studies have an evaluative and quality improvement framework in place, have longer follow-ups, and use robust outcomes, such as LDKT and time to transplantation. This is because surrogate measures, such as donor contact, may not necessarily translate to LDKT. An in-center quality control project revealed that >50% of the donors who contacted our transplant center were refused at the first contact, and from the remaining about 20% were noncommitted and did not contact the center again. Also, we recommend that follow-up in studies be longer than 1 year as the median duration of donor evaluation is reported to be 10 months.50,51 Finally, given the significant disparities in access to LDKT,7,8,52 efforts should be made to decrease selection bias, and to incorporate wider interventions applicable to patients across different races, ethnicities and to those of different literacy and socioeconomic status.

In conclusion, this systematic review demonstrates that educational interventions are effective in improving measures of LDKT; however, our findings are limited by the heterogeneity of the data, and inherent biases and limitations of these studies. Prospective studies with a diverse patient population, longer follow-ups, and robust outcomes are needed to inform clinical practice; many are currently ongoing.34,53-59 In the meantime, centers could consider simple, less expensive interventions, such as DTA, to educate and assist potential donors and recipients.


1. Matas AJ, Smith JM, Skeans MA, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2013 annual data report: kidney.Am J Transplant201515Suppl 21–34
2. Manera KE, Hanson CS, Chapman JR, et al. Expectations and experiences of follow-up and self-care after living kidney donation: a focus group study.Transplantation20171012627–2635
3. Hart A, Smith JM, Skeans MA, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2015 annual data report: kidney.Am J Transplant201717Suppl 121–116
4. Purnell TS, Auguste P, Crews DC, et al. Comparison of life participation activities among adults treated by hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation: a systematic review.Am J Kidney Dis201362953–973
5. Kranenburg LW, Zuidema WC, Weimar W, et al. Psychological barriers for living kidney donation: how to inform the potential donors?Transplantation200784965–971
6. Barnieh L, McLaughlin K, Manns BJ, et al.; Alberta Kidney Disease NetworkBarriers to living kidney donation identified by eligible candidates with end-stage renal disease.Nephrol Dial Transplant201126732–738
7. Gillespie A, Hammer H, Bass SB, et al. Attitudes towards living donor kidney transplantation among urban African American hemodialysis patients: a qualitative and quantitative analysis.J Health Care Poor Underserved201526852–872
8. Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Kaplan B, et al. Patients’ willingness to talk to others about living kidney donation.Prog Transplant20081825–31
9. Boulware LE, Hill-Briggs F, Kraus ES, et al. Effectiveness of educational and social worker interventions to activate patients’ discussion and pursuit of preemptive living donor kidney transplantation: a randomized controlled trial.Am J Kidney Dis201361476–486
10. Waterman AD, Stanley SL, Covelli T, et al. Living donation decision making: recipients’ concerns and educational needs.Prog Transplant20061617–23
11. Ismail SY, Claassens L, Luchtenburg AE, et al. Living donor kidney transplantation among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: a model for breaking the hurdles.Patient Educ Couns201390118–124
12. Kranenburg LW, Richards M, Zuidema WC, et al. Avoiding the issue: patients’ (non)communication with potential living kidney donors.Patient Educ Couns20097439–44
13. Garonzik-Wang JM, Berger JC, Ros RL, et al. Live donor champion: finding live kidney donors by separating the advocate from the patient.Transplantation2012931147–1150
14. Barnieh L, Collister D, Manns B, et al. A scoping review for strategies to increase living kidney donation.Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2017121518–1527
15. Gander JC, Gordon EJ, Patzer RE. Decision aids to increase living donor kidney transplantation.Curr Transplant Rep201741–12
16. Massey EK, Gregoor PJ, Nette RW, et al. Early home-based group education to support informed decision-making among patients with end-stage renal disease: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.Nephrol Dial Transplant201631823–830
17. Rodrigue JR, Paek MJ, Egbuna O, et al. Making house calls increases living donor inquiries and evaluations for blacks on the kidney transplant waiting list.Transplantation201498979–986
18. Rodrigue JR, Paek MJ, Schold JD, et al. Predictors and moderators of educational interventions to increase the likelihood of potential living donors for Black patients awaiting kidney transplantation.J Racial Ethn Health Disparities20174837–845
19. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al.; PRISMA-P GroupPreferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.Syst Rev201541–1
20. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al.; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods GroupThe Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.BMJ2011343d5928
21. Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package.J Stat Softw20103648
22. Schweitzer EJ, Yoon S, Hart J, et al. Increased living donor volunteer rates with a formal recipient family education program.Am J Kidney Dis199729739–745
23. Foster CE 3rd, Philosophe B, Schweitzer EJ, et al. A decade of experience with renal transplantation in African-Americans.Ann Surg2002236794–804discussion 804
24. Marlow NM, Kazley AS, Chavin KD, et al. A patient navigator and education program for increasing potential living donors: a comparative observational study.Clin Transplant201630619–627
25. Callender CO, Hall MB, Miles PV. Increasing living donations: expanding the national MOTTEP community grassroots model. Minority organ tissue transplant education program.Transplant Proc2002342563–2564
26. Moore DR, Feurer ID, Zavala EY, et al. A web-based application for initial screening of living kidney donors: development, implementation and evaluation.Am J Transplant201313450–457
27. Kumar K, King EA, Muzaale AD, et al. A smartphone app for increasing live organ donation.Am J Transplant2016163548–3553
28. González Monte E, Delgado I, Polanco N, et al. Results of a living donor kidney promotion program.Transplant Proc2010422837–2838
29. Gordon EJ, Reddy E, Gil S, et al. Culturally competent transplant program improves Hispanics’ knowledge and attitudes about live kidney donation and transplant.Prog Transplant20142456–68
30. Gordon EJ, Feinglass J, Carney P, et al. A website intervention to increase knowledge about living kidney donation and transplantation among Hispanic/Latino dialysis patients.Prog Transplant20162682–91
31. Windmill DC, Jain N, Inston NG, et al. Impact of a “direct approach” to live kidney donation in the British Indo-Asian community.Transplant Proc200537551–552
32. van Dongen G, Versluijs-Rovers E, van der Marel T, et al. Let’s talk about it; early group education for family and friends of CKD patients.Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation201732Suppl 3iii427
33. Axelrod D, Kynard-Amerson CS, Wojciechowski D, et al. Cultural competency of a mobile, customized patient education tool for improving potential kidney transplant recipients’ knowledge and decision-making.Clin Transplant201731e12944
34. Waterman AD, McSorley AM, Peipert JD, et al. Explore transplant at home: a randomized control trial of an educational intervention to increase transplant knowledge for black and white socioeconomically disadvantaged dialysis patients.BMC Nephrol201516150
35. Waterman A, Peipert J, McSorley AM, et al. At-home transplant education increases black and low-income dialysis patients’ transplant knowledge, attitudes, informed decision-making, and pursuit: an explore transplant @ home randomized controlled trial.Am J Transplant201717381
36. Traino HM, West SM, Nonterah CW, et al. Communicating about choices in transplantation (COACH).Prog Transplant20172731–38
37. Gordon EJ, Feinglass J, Carney P, et al. A culturally targeted website for Hispanics/Latinos about living kidney donation and transplantation: a randomized controlled trial of increased knowledge.Transplantation20161001149–1160
38. Cervera I, De Vargas MG, Cortes CM, et al. A hospital-based educational approach to increase live donor kidney transplantation among Blacks and Hispanics.Clin Exp Med20155643–52
39. Ismail SY, Luchtenburg AE, Timman R, et al. Home-based family intervention increases knowledge, communication and living donation rates: a randomized controlled trial.Am J Transplant2014141862–1869
40. Arriola KR, Powell CL, Thompson NJ, et al. Living donor transplant education for african American patients with end-stage renal disease.Prog Transplant201424362–370
41. Cankaya E, Cetinkaya R, Keles M, et al. Does a predialysis education program increase the number of pre-emptive renal transplantations?Transplant Proc201345887–889
42. Barnieh L, McLaughlin K, Manns BJ, et al.; Alberta Kidney Disease NetworkEvaluation of an education intervention to increase the pursuit of living kidney donation: a randomized controlled trial.Prog Transplant20112136–42
43. Pradel FG, Suwannaprom P, Mullins CD, et al. Short-term impact of an educational program promoting live donor kidney transplantation in dialysis centers.Prog Transplant200818263–272
44. Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Lin JK, et al. Increasing live donor kidney transplantation: a randomized controlled trial of a home-based educational intervention.Am J Transplant20077394–401
45. Connelly JO, O’Keefe N, Hathaway D, et al. Impact of a human interest video on living-donor kidney donation rates.J Biocommun1999267–10
46. Waterman A, Peipert J, Xiao H, et al. Educational strategies for increased wait-listing rates: opportunities for dialysis center intervention.Am J Transplant201717239
47. Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Kaplan B, et al. A randomized trial of a home-based educational approach to increase live donor kidney transplantation: effects in blacks and whites.Am J Kidney Dis200851663–670
48. Gourlay WA, Stothers L, Liu L. Attitudes and predictive factors for live kidney donation in British Columbia. A comparison of recipients and wait-list patients.Can J Urol2005122511–2520
49. Stuart J, Rutherford RJ. Medical student concentration during lectures.Lancet19782514–516
50. Habbous S, Arnold J, Begen MA, et al.; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) NetworkDuration of living kidney transplant donor evaluations: findings from 2 multicenter cohort studies.Am J Kidney Dis201872483–498
51. Habbous S, Woo J, Lam NN, et al. The efficiency of evaluating candidates for living kidney donation: a scoping review.Transplant Direct20184e394
52. Reese PP, Shea JA, Berns JS, et al. Recruitment of live donors by candidates for kidney transplantation.Clin J Am Soc Nephrol200831152–1159
53. Bornemann K, Croswell E, Abaye M, et al. Protocol of the KTFT-TALK study to reduce racial disparities in kidney transplant evaluation and living donor kidney transplantation.Contemp Clin Trials20175352–59
54. Strigo TS, Ephraim PL, Pounds I, et al. The TALKS study to improve communication, logistical, and financial barriers to live donor kidney transplantation in African Americans: protocol of a randomized clinical trial.BMC Nephrol201516160
55. Waterman AD, Robbins ML, Paiva AL, et al. Your path to transplant: a randomized controlled trial of a tailored computer education intervention to increase living donor kidney transplant.BMC Nephrol201415166
56. Ephraim PL, Powe NR, Rabb H, et al. The providing resources to enhance African American patients’ readiness to make decisions about kidney disease (PREPARED) study: protocol of a randomized controlled trial.BMC Nephrol201213135
57. Ismail SY, Luchtenburg AE, Zuidema WC, et al. Multisystemic engagement and nephrology based educational intervention: a randomized controlled trial protocol on the kidneyTteam At Home study.BMC Nephrol20121362
58. Rodrigue JR, Pavlakis M, Egbuna O, et al. The “house calls” trial: a randomized controlled trial to reduce racial disparities in live donor kidney transplantation: rationale and design.Contemp Clin Trials201233811–818
59. Weng FL, Brown DR, Peipert JD, et al. Protocol of a cluster randomized trial of an educational intervention to increase knowledge of living donor kidney transplant among potential transplant candidates.BMC Nephrol201314256

Supplemental Digital Content

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.