↓ Skip to main content

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Living Kidney Donation: A Single Center Experience

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Living Kidney Donation: A Single Center Experience
Published in
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10880-015-9424-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R. Rodrigue, Tanya Vishnevsky, Aaron Fleishman, Tracy Brann, Amy R. Evenson, Martha Pavlakis, Didier A. Mandelbrot

Abstract

This article describes the development and implementation of an initiative at one transplant center to annually assess psychosocial outcomes of living kidney donors. The current analysis focuses on a cohort of adults (n = 208) who donated a kidney at BIDMC between September 2005 and August 2012, in which two post-donation annual assessments could be examined. One and two year post-donation surveys were returned by 59 % (n = 123) and 47 % (n = 98) of LKDs, respectively. Those who did not complete any survey were more likely to be younger (p = 0.001), minority race/ethnicity (p < 0.001), and uninsured at the time of donation (p = 0.01) compared to those who returned at least one of the two annual surveys. The majority of donors reported no adverse physical or psychosocial consequences of donation, high satisfaction with the donation experience, and no donation decision regret. However, a sizable minority of donors felt more pain intensity than expected and recovery time was much slower than expected, and experienced a clinically significant decline in vitality. We describe how these outcomes are used to inform clinical practice at our transplant center as well as highlight challenges in donor surveillance over time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Other 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 38%
Social Sciences 13 22%
Psychology 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 11 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,283,046
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#408
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,191
of 262,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.