Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors
The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to co...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2017-05, Vol.12 (5), p.e0175672-e0175672 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0175672 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | e0175672 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 12 |
| creator | Weng, Li-Chueh Huang, Hsiu-Li Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin Lee, Wei-Chen |
| description | The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.
This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.
The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20-47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0-7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.
Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0175672 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1899788883</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A491887533</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_8ac934554cee43e6b66fa75e9d7e5775</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A491887533</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8c24116fecd0490a84086bf1f1ef44e8d018b272f95b4309043c3bb16349e0713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjEmTNsmNsCx-DCys-HUb0vRkJkOmGZN0Vfzzpjuzy1TmwvYi4fR539Ock1MUTzGaY8Lwm7UfQq_cfOt7mCPM6oZV94pTLEg1aypE7h_sT4pHMa4RqglvmofFScXrCrGKnRZ_PgXorE4-xNKbsgNto_V9qTatvVYOeg2l6rsyraDsrDEQxlAsW0g_ATKn06Bc6ey17ZfjAqHsfD_ajbKtT9Ane5x4XDwwykV4sl_Pim_v3329-Di7vPqwuDi_nOlGVGnGdUUxbgzoDlGBFKeIN63BBoOhFHiHMG8rVhlRt5QggSjRpG1xQ6gAxDA5K57vfLfOR7mvW5SYC8F4fkgmFjui82ott8FuVPgtvbLyJuDDUqqQrHYgudKC0LqmGoASaNqmMYrVIDoGNWN19nq7zza0G-h0Pn9QbmI6_dLblVz6a1lTUmOOssGrvUHwPwaISW5s1OCc6sEP-b8FQjw38ibXi3_Q46fbU8vcUGl743NePZrKcyow59lppOZHqPx2sLE6XzJjc3wieD0RZCbBr7RUQ4xy8eXz_7NX36fsywN2BcqlVfRuSPlexilId6AOPsYA5q7IGMlxRm6rIccZkfsZybJnhw26E90OBfkLHCENdQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1899788883</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Weng, Li-Chueh ; Huang, Hsiu-Li ; Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin ; Lee, Wei-Chen</creator><contributor>Stepkowski, Stanislaw</contributor><creatorcontrib>Weng, Li-Chueh ; Huang, Hsiu-Li ; Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin ; Lee, Wei-Chen ; Stepkowski, Stanislaw</creatorcontrib><description>The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.
This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.
The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20-47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0-7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.
Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175672</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28520727</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age ; Alcohols ; Ambivalence ; Analysis ; Anxiety ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Blood & organ donations ; Cadmium ; Cirrhosis ; Coexistence ; Colleges & universities ; Consanguinity ; Consent ; Consultation ; Correlation analysis ; Criteria ; Data processing ; Decision Making ; Donors ; Emotional factors ; Emotions ; Ethics ; Evaluation ; Families & family life ; Female ; Government regulations ; Hair ; Health ; Health aspects ; Heart ; Homogeneity ; Humans ; Information dissemination ; Intervention ; Legislation ; Liver ; Liver transplantation ; Liver Transplantation - psychology ; Liver transplants ; Living Donors - psychology ; Long-term care ; Male ; Mathematical analysis ; Mathematical models ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Motivation ; Nursing ; Nursing schools ; Organ donors ; Organs ; Parents ; Protocol (computers) ; Psychiatry ; Psychological aspects ; Psychological factors ; Quality of life ; Rivers ; Routines ; Siblings ; Side effects ; Social interactions ; Social Sciences ; Social support ; Surgery ; Tissue donors ; Transplant Recipients ; Transplantation ; Transplants & implants ; Uncertainty ; Unrelated Donors - psychology</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-05, Vol.12 (5), p.e0175672-e0175672</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Weng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Weng et al 2017 Weng et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8c24116fecd0490a84086bf1f1ef44e8d018b272f95b4309043c3bb16349e0713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8c24116fecd0490a84086bf1f1ef44e8d018b272f95b4309043c3bb16349e0713</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6926-988X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5435180/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5435180/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2100,2926,23865,27923,27924,53790,53792,79371,79372</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28520727$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Stepkowski, Stanislaw</contributor><creatorcontrib>Weng, Li-Chueh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Hsiu-Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Wei-Chen</creatorcontrib><title>Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.
This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.
The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20-47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0-7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.
Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Alcohols</subject><subject>Ambivalence</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Blood & organ donations</subject><subject>Cadmium</subject><subject>Cirrhosis</subject><subject>Coexistence</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>Consanguinity</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Consultation</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Donors</subject><subject>Emotional factors</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Families & family life</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Government regulations</subject><subject>Hair</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Homogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information dissemination</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Liver transplantation</subject><subject>Liver Transplantation - psychology</subject><subject>Liver transplants</subject><subject>Living Donors - psychology</subject><subject>Long-term care</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing schools</subject><subject>Organ donors</subject><subject>Organs</subject><subject>Parents</subject><subject>Protocol (computers)</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Psychological factors</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Routines</subject><subject>Siblings</subject><subject>Side effects</subject><subject>Social interactions</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Social support</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Tissue donors</subject><subject>Transplant Recipients</subject><subject>Transplantation</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>Unrelated Donors - psychology</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjEmTNsmNsCx-DCys-HUb0vRkJkOmGZN0Vfzzpjuzy1TmwvYi4fR539Ock1MUTzGaY8Lwm7UfQq_cfOt7mCPM6oZV94pTLEg1aypE7h_sT4pHMa4RqglvmofFScXrCrGKnRZ_PgXorE4-xNKbsgNto_V9qTatvVYOeg2l6rsyraDsrDEQxlAsW0g_ATKn06Bc6ey17ZfjAqHsfD_ajbKtT9Ane5x4XDwwykV4sl_Pim_v3329-Di7vPqwuDi_nOlGVGnGdUUxbgzoDlGBFKeIN63BBoOhFHiHMG8rVhlRt5QggSjRpG1xQ6gAxDA5K57vfLfOR7mvW5SYC8F4fkgmFjui82ott8FuVPgtvbLyJuDDUqqQrHYgudKC0LqmGoASaNqmMYrVIDoGNWN19nq7zza0G-h0Pn9QbmI6_dLblVz6a1lTUmOOssGrvUHwPwaISW5s1OCc6sEP-b8FQjw38ibXi3_Q46fbU8vcUGl743NePZrKcyow59lppOZHqPx2sLE6XzJjc3wieD0RZCbBr7RUQ4xy8eXz_7NX36fsywN2BcqlVfRuSPlexilId6AOPsYA5q7IGMlxRm6rIccZkfsZybJnhw26E90OBfkLHCENdQ</recordid><startdate>20170517</startdate><enddate>20170517</enddate><creator>Weng, Li-Chueh</creator><creator>Huang, Hsiu-Li</creator><creator>Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin</creator><creator>Lee, Wei-Chen</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6926-988X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170517</creationdate><title>Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors</title><author>Weng, Li-Chueh ; Huang, Hsiu-Li ; Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin ; Lee, Wei-Chen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8c24116fecd0490a84086bf1f1ef44e8d018b272f95b4309043c3bb16349e0713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Alcohols</topic><topic>Ambivalence</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Blood & organ donations</topic><topic>Cadmium</topic><topic>Cirrhosis</topic><topic>Coexistence</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>Consanguinity</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Consultation</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Donors</topic><topic>Emotional factors</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Families & family life</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Government regulations</topic><topic>Hair</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Homogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information dissemination</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Liver transplantation</topic><topic>Liver Transplantation - psychology</topic><topic>Liver transplants</topic><topic>Living Donors - psychology</topic><topic>Long-term care</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing schools</topic><topic>Organ donors</topic><topic>Organs</topic><topic>Parents</topic><topic>Protocol (computers)</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Psychological factors</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Routines</topic><topic>Siblings</topic><topic>Side effects</topic><topic>Social interactions</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Social support</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Tissue donors</topic><topic>Transplant Recipients</topic><topic>Transplantation</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>Unrelated Donors - psychology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weng, Li-Chueh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Hsiu-Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Wei-Chen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weng, Li-Chueh</au><au>Huang, Hsiu-Li</au><au>Tsai, Hsiu-Hsin</au><au>Lee, Wei-Chen</au><au>Stepkowski, Stanislaw</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-05-17</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0175672</spage><epage>e0175672</epage><pages>e0175672-e0175672</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.
This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.
The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20-47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0-7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.
Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>28520727</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0175672</doi><tpages>e0175672</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6926-988X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2017-05, Vol.12 (5), p.e0175672-e0175672 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1899788883 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adult Age Alcohols Ambivalence Analysis Anxiety Biology and Life Sciences Blood & organ donations Cadmium Cirrhosis Coexistence Colleges & universities Consanguinity Consent Consultation Correlation analysis Criteria Data processing Decision Making Donors Emotional factors Emotions Ethics Evaluation Families & family life Female Government regulations Hair Health Health aspects Heart Homogeneity Humans Information dissemination Intervention Legislation Liver Liver transplantation Liver Transplantation - psychology Liver transplants Living Donors - psychology Long-term care Male Mathematical analysis Mathematical models Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Middle Aged Motivation Nursing Nursing schools Organ donors Organs Parents Protocol (computers) Psychiatry Psychological aspects Psychological factors Quality of life Rivers Routines Siblings Side effects Social interactions Social Sciences Social support Surgery Tissue donors Transplant Recipients Transplantation Transplants & implants Uncertainty Unrelated Donors - psychology |
| title | Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T10%3A05%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Predictors%20of%20decision%20ambivalence%20and%20the%20differences%20between%20actual%20living%20liver%20donors%20and%20potential%20living%20liver%20donors&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Weng,%20Li-Chueh&rft.date=2017-05-17&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0175672&rft.epage=e0175672&rft.pages=e0175672-e0175672&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0175672&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA491887533%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1899788883&rft_id=info:pmid/28520727&rft_galeid=A491887533&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_8ac934554cee43e6b66fa75e9d7e5775&rfr_iscdi=true |