Resilience and Personality Traits among Living Liver and Kidney Donors. (March 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rudow, Dianne LaPointe; Iacoviello, Brian M.; Charney, Dennis
• Is Part Of: Progress in transplantation. Volume 24:Number 1(2014)
• Page Start: 82
• Page End: 90
• Publication Date: 2014-03
• Subjects: Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc -- Periodicals; Transplantation; Organ Procurement; Tissue Donors; Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 362.1783
• DOI: 10.7182/pit2014448
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9248

Abstract

Objective: To explore the psychosocial characteristics of living liver and kidney donors to identify common traits including personality traits, purpose in life, resilience, and postdonation growth. Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to 835 living donors. Included were a survey of demographic characteristics and donation experiences, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, the Purpose in Life Scale, the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Analyses compared the donor groups with the scale norms (where available) and compared differences between donor groups. Results: Eighteen percent of donors (n = 151) responded anonymously. The sample was as resilient as the general population and significantly more resilient than the population of primary care patients. Kidney donors were significantly more resilient than liver donors. Live donors demonstrated scores on the NEO Five-Factor Inventory in the "high" range for agreeableness and conscientiousness and "low" for neuroticism. Kidney donors scored significantly lower on the neuroticism scale than liver donors scored. Purpose in Life scores and Post Donation Growth scores were skewed and were overwhelmingly high in this sample. Additional differences in psychosocial variables are also described. Conclusion: Live donors are resilient and show adaptive personality traits. It is difficult to conclude whether these traits were inspired by the act of donation or if they make one more apt to choose donation. Moreover, the study methods introduce the possibility of selection bias: those with certain characteristics may have been more likely to respond. Prospective studies before and after donation are warranted.