Experience of directed living donor kidney transplant recipients: a literature review
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Experience of directed living donor kidney transplant recipients: a literature review

Rebecca Zoe Croft Staff nurse (adult nursing), Trauma Ward, Horton General Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxfordshire, England
Charlotte Maddison Senior lecturer, Adult nursing, Coventry University, Coventry, England

A directed living donor is a healthy individual who donates an organ to a specific person. The number of living donor kidney transplantations in the UK has been increasing; however, living donation and the experience of kidney transplant recipients remain under-researched areas that are relevant to the provision of effective person-centred transplant care.

Aim To understand the experience of directed living donor kidney transplant recipients to inform future nursing practice in the field.

Method A qualitative literature review was undertaken. A search strategy was used to locate relevant articles in five electronic databases, and critical analysis was used to determine which articles should be included in the literature review.

Findings Seven articles were identified for inclusion in the literature review. Four themes were identified from these articles: pre-transplantation decision-making; psychological and emotional effects of transplantation; physical effects of transplantation and effect on home life; and the relationship with the donor and others.

Conclusion The psychosocial and physical effects of directed living donor kidney transplantation on the recipient can be profound, particularly with regard to the dynamics of the donor-recipient relationship. Although transplantation can transform lives, careful consideration, preparation and ongoing psychosocial support are vital to prevent recipients experiencing negative effects.

Nursing Standard. 32, 3, 41-49. doi: 10.7748/ns.2017.e10256



Conflict of interest

None declared

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Received: 04 August 2015

Accepted: 02 February 2017

Want to read more?

Subscribe for unlimited access

Try 1 month’s access for just £1 and get:

Your subscription package includes:
  • Full access to nursingstandard.com and the Nursing Standard app
  • The monthly digital edition
  • RCNi Portfolio and interactive CPD quizzes
  • RCNi Learning with 200+ evidence-based modules
  • 10 articles a month from any other RCNi journal
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student
Already subscribed? Log in

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now