data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e1e6/7e1e61f01d233b91960c61442e748a5609c80a7c" alt="Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset"
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Public Health
Sec. Public Health Education and Promotion
Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1552393
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objective: Only 18% of kidneys and livers transplanted in the United States come from living donors, and increasing rates of living organ donation could help decrease the critical organ deficit. Non-directed living donation is even less common, with only 1.4% of kidney and liver transplants coming from anonymous donors (1). This study aimed to determine which factors are considered more motivating and more discouraging to living organ donation, how characteristics of potential recipients affect willingness to consider living liver donation, and whether there are any associations related to a person's willingness to consider non-directed living organ donation.A cross-sectional survey was distributed in-person on a large medical campus, and participation was incentivized with the opportunity to spin a prize wheel. In addition to participant characteristics, the survey queried awareness of directed and non-directed living donation, whether or not the participant would consider directed donation and non-directed donation, motivating and discouraging factors to living donation, vignettes to assess willingness to donate to recipients with different characteristics, and an altruism personality inventory. An optional interpersonal reactivity index was included as well.Results: Three hundred twenty-six participants scanned a QR code to take the survey. Most participants (299 of 318, 94%) were aware of living donation. Participants who said yes to considering non-directed living donation (67 of 305, 22%) had significantly higher altruism scores than those who said no (123 of 305, 40%). Willingness to consider living liver donation varied based on recipient characteristics, with participants reporting they would be more willing to donate to a recipient with an immune disorder over alcohol-related liver disease, an infant over an adult, a relative over a nonrelative, and a sibling with alcohol-related liver disease over a nonrelative with alcohol-related liver disease.The most motivating factors for considering living donation were having a child recipient, helping someone in need, high transplant center success rate, and helping a family member or friend. The most discouraging factors were uncompensated expenses, difficulty of surgery recovery, risk of surgery, and length of recovery. Participants were less willing to donate to adults, strangers, and recipients with alcohol-related liver disease.
Keywords: Living organ donation, Living liver donation, Living kidney donation, Altruism, non-directed living donation, organ donation
Received: 06 Jan 2025; Accepted: 21 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Naibauer, Branagan, Lehto, Reynolds, Mikulich- Gilbertson, Page and Davis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Rachel Anne Davis, Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, 80217-3364, Colorado, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.