Psychosocial evaluation matters

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Amanda Dew ◽  
Andrea F. DiMartini
Keyword(s):  
Psychosocial Evaluation

Prospective Psychosocial Evaluation of Related Kidney Donors: Indian Perspective

2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 2001-2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Minz ◽  
N. Udgiri ◽  
A. Sharma ◽  
M.K. Heer ◽  
R. Kashyap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Donors ◽  
Indian Perspective ◽  
Psychosocial Evaluation

scholarly journals Predonation psychosocial evaluation of living kidney and liver donor candidates: a systematic literature review

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Duerinckx ◽  
Lotte Timmerman ◽  
Johan Van Gogh ◽  
Jan van Busschbach ◽  
Sohal Y. Ismail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Liver Donor ◽  
Psychosocial Evaluation

Abstract 390: Gender Differences In Psychosocial Evaluation Of VAD Candidates: A Mixed Methods Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Knoepke ◽  
Johnny Williams ◽  
Bonnie Siry ◽  
Prateeti Khazanie
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Psychosocial Assessment ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Clinically Depressed ◽  
Psychosocial Evaluation

Purpose: To describe potential gender differences in the psychosocial evaluation for left ventricular assist devices (VADs) using retrospective data from the DECIDE-LVAD trial. Method: Psychosocial evaluations performed as part of pre-VAD evaluations, including all female participants as well as men matched by site and age. 55 notes from 5 institutions were analyzed using a mixed method approach. Analytic codes were developed a priori, using domains assessed in the Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant (SIPAT) and others addressing caregiver attributes. Overall risk was calculated using a composite percent-of-perfect formula based on various adaptations of the SIPAT used in some evaluations. After notes were coded across each domain, a content analysis was performed. Results: Records from 28 male and 27 female patients were analyzed. Lack of standardized assessment limited our ability to draw comparisons. However, men were more likely to be clinically depressed (55.9% vs 44.1%), have substance use problems (53.4% vs. 46.6%), understand their HF (57.7% vs. 42.3%), and to have a caregiver (54.5% vs. 45.6%). While the number of assessments including quantitative assessment was low, men scored better than women (53.1% men [n=11] vs. 46.9% women [n=12]).The way in which caregivers were identified was different for men and women. Qualitatively, female caregivers seemed to be preferred, implicitly favoring male patients in many circumstances. This was apparent in how caregiving plans were described and in a seeming desire to supplement male caregivers' effort with support from women ( Table 1). Conclusion: Across our sample, men trended toward being rated as better VAD candidates than women, despite higher rates of depression and substance use. Caregiver identification was different in ways which may be due to differences in how male vs. female caregivers are perceived. Differences in caregiver identification need to be explored further, but could stem from women being unable to find a caregiver for themselves, serving as caregivers for others, or from men not being viewed as able caregivers. Standardized evaluation, including quantification of risk and caregiver appropriateness, would enhance efforts to reduce implicit bias in evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document