ARTICLE IN PRESS
0277-9536/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.so
�CorrespondE-mail addr
joan.cunningha
paul.snelling@e
jeannie.devitt@
cpreece@thegeo
Social Science & Medicine 64 (2007) 2107–2114
www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed
The use of psychosocial criteria in Australian patient selectionguidelines for kidney transplantation
Kate Andersona,�, Alan Cassa, Joan Cunninghamb, Paul Snellingc,Jeannie Devittd, Cilla Preecea
aThe George Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, AustraliabMenzies School of Health Research, Australia
cRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital, AustraliadCooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Australia
Available online 21 March 2007
Abstract
Psychosocial criteria are increasingly being included in practice guidelines for determining patient suitability for kidney
transplantation. Although intended to promote evidence-based decision-making, if poorly defined, the inclusion of
psychosocial criteria has the potential to reduce transparency in patient selection and equity of access. We reviewed all
Australian practice guidelines concerning patient suitability for kidney transplantation and qualitatively analysed their
inclusion of, and approach towards, psychosocial criteria.
Transplant Directors from all Australian adult transplant units were invited to submit their unit’s guidelines for this
national research audit. All 16 units (100%) submitted some form of documentation. We analysed only those documents
that were purposely structured tools for directing patient selection (eight guidelines used in 10 transplant units). Content
analysis was performed on the abstracted psychosocial criteria. Psychosocial criteria—particularly non-compliance and
smoking—were commonly included. In general, the psychosocial criteria were ill-defined and lacking in substantiating
evidence and recommendations for assessment or action.
Our results reveal that current Australian patient selection guidelines for kidney transplantation incorporate poorly
defined psychosocial criteria that vary greatly. Furthermore, there appears to be a weak evidence base underpinning their
inclusion. The use of psychosocial criteria in this manner decreases the transparency of patient selection and increases the
potential for subjective estimates of social worth to influence patient selection. The priority given to such criteria in
transplant guidelines requires attention and debate.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Healthcare rationing; Kidney transplantation; Patient selection; Practice guidelines; Psychosocial criteria; Australia
e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
cscimed.2007.02.012
ing author. Tel.: +612 9993 4500.
esses: [email protected] (K. Anderson),
rg.au (A. Cass),
[email protected] (J. Cunningham),
mail.cs.nsw.gov.au (P. Snelling),
menzies.edu.au (J. Devitt),
rgeinstitute.org (C. Preece).
Introduction
Over recent decades, the evidence-based medicine(EBM) movement has pervasively influenced main-stream biomedical and clinical research cultures.EBM’s appeal has been its promise of improvingpatient care through clinical standardisation and
.
ARTICLE IN PRESSK. Anderson et al. / Social Science & Medicine 64 (2007) 2107–21142108
‘best practice’ based on scientific evidence (Evi-dence-Based Medicine Working Group, 1992). Thisemphasis on evidence-based practice has triggeredthe growth in the number and scope of clinicalpractice guidelines (Norheim, 1999).
Clinical practice guidelines have been defined as‘systematically developed statements to assist prac-titioner and patient decisions about the mostappropriate healthcare for specific clinical circum-stances’ (Field & Lohr, 1990). Today, practiceguidelines are used not only to influence clinicaldecision-making, but also in wider health policyareas such as the allocation of resources. Withinorgan transplantation programmes, clinical deci-sion-making and resource allocation are oftenconnected, which can put practitioners in thedifficult situation of dual loyalty—needing tobalance their duty of care to the patient with theirsocial responsibility to manage scarce resourcesjudiciously (McKneally, Dickens, Meslin, & Singer,1997). Ideally, practice guidelines relating to patientsuitability for transplantation should assist practi-tioners to reconcile their competing responsibilitiesand ensure equitable access to transplant for allsuitable patients.
Transplant programs commonly include psycho-social criteria alongside physiological criteria intheir patient selection practice guidelines (Dewet al., 2000; Levenson & Olbrisch, 1993). As describedby Dew et al. (2000), the term psychosocial has beenused in organ transplant contexts to encompassvirtually all nonmedical aspects of the patient.
Including psychosocial criteria in patient selectionguidelines has the potential to reduce fairness andequity in the reconciliation of practitioners’ dualloyalty. On the one hand, a personal understandingof the patient can assist the practitioner indetermining their suitability for transplantation.On the other, ethical concerns emerge whenpsychosocial criteria weigh heavily in the allocationof scarce resources. These concerns stem from theopportunity for socially- and/or culturally specificvalues and attitudes to affect patients’ access totreatment (Giacomini, Streiner, & Anand, 2000).Increasing the scope for subjectivity to inappropri-ately influence patient selection might reduce accessfor patients belonging to minority or socially‘undervalued’ groups (Institute of Medicine, 2003).
While this dilemma is relevant to many organtransplantation contexts, it can be clearly illustratedin the treatment of end-stage kidney disease(ESKD). While the optimal treatment for many
patients with ESKD is kidney transplantation, thedemand for organs far outweighs supply. Kidneyspecialists, therefore, make decisions about patientsuitability against a background of a chronicscarcity. While practice guidelines ideally assistpractitioners to navigate these difficult suitabilitydecisions, the inclusion of psychosocial criteria—particularly when imprecise and/or ambiguous—might weaken the intended objectivity of EBMand the fairness of the resultant decisions. It is,therefore, important to examine if, how andwhy psychosocial characteristics are included inguidelines.
As part of a larger investigation of IndigenousAustralian patients’ access to kidney transplanta-tion, we conducted a review of all Australianpractice guidelines relating to patient suitabilityfor kidney transplantation. Qualitative analysis wasundertaken to investigate the inclusion of andapproach towards psychosocial criteria.
Methods
Study design
In July 2005, a letter from two of the investigatorswas sent to the Directors of all 16 adult renaltransplant units in Australia, requesting copies oftheir ‘clinical guidelines relating to patient suitabil-ity for transplant’ for inclusion in a cross-sectionalresearch audit. Follow up for non-response was viareminder emails. No information was collectedabout adherence to guidelines.
Approval to undertake the study was receivedfrom the Human Research Ethics Committee of theUniversity of Sydney.
Qualitative analysis
All submitted documents were read by twoinvestigators—a kidney specialist/researcher and aresearch psychologist. Those documents that werepurposely structured tools for directing patientselection were deemed to be clinical practice guide-lines and included in the analysis; work-up proto-cols or test lists were excluded. In line with thecharacterisation of psychosocial described by Dewet al. (2000), any reference to nonmedical aspects ofthe patient or their circumstance was deemed to be apsychosocial criterion and the relevant text wasabstracted for further analysis. Both investigatorsabstracted data. Although no formal test of
ARTICLE IN PRESSK. Anderson et al. / Social Science & Medicine 64 (2007) 2107–2114 2109
agreement was undertaken, consensus was achievedwithout any substantive disagreement.
The abstracted psychosocial criteria thus identifiedwere grouped into broad categories: compliance,psychological issues, psychiatric conditions, socialsupport, financial/vocational circumstances, smok-ing, and substance abuse. The abstracted passagesrelating to these categories were then analysed andcompared in terms of the following attributes:
�
type of criterion cited, � level of priority given (i.e. absolute contraindica-tion, relative contraindication or recommenda-tion for further investigation),
� extent of descriptive detail, � recommendations for assessing patient suitabilitybased on the criterion,
� recommendations for treatment or action torectify a contraindicated behaviour or condition,
� evidence cited to substantiate its inclusion.The process of categorisation and use of attri-butes was informed by the conceptual framework ofrelationships employed by Giacomini, Cook, Strei-ner, and Anand (2001) to describe and interprettheir particular content. Similarly however, theactual content of the Australian guidelines was theprimary influence on the ultimate set of categoriesthat emerged. The specific attributes used here werederived by the investigators for their utility in termsof (i) analysing the scope of current psychosocialcriteria and (ii) developing useful recommendationsfor transplant programs. Both investigators ana-lysed data. Again consensus was achieved withoutsubstantive disagreement.
Results
All 16 (100%) units returned some documenta-tion. Ten units (63%) submitted guidelines thatwere analysed. The other six had no explicitguidelines for directing patient selection. We ex-cluded patient work-up checklists from our analysis.Of the 10 units providing guidelines, three used acommon set, leaving eight distinct sets for analysis.
Styles of presentation varied across the guide-lines; some expressed criteria in dot points, otherswere more expansive. All eight included at least onepsychosocial criterion. Criteria referring to smokingand non-compliance were most commonly included,appearing in eight and seven sets, respectively(Table 1). However, the priorities accorded to
non-compliance and to smoking varied, rangingfrom a recommendation for inquiry to an absolutecontraindication (Table 1). A variety of psychiatricconditions were included in six of the guidelines(Table 1). Criteria relating to social support andfinancial/vocational circumstances were each in-cluded in only one set (Table 1). Few psychosocialcriteria were accompanied by descriptions ordefinitions (see Table 1) and those included werevague and non-specific. Similarly, only two of theguidelines offered recommendations for assessmentor remedial action for psychosocial contraindica-tions. These recommendations were referrals forpsychosocial/psychiatric assessment for variousissues and encouragement to stop and referral tocessation programmes for smoking. One guidelinecited evidence for inclusion of one psychosocialcriterion—smoking (Table 1). This evidence con-sisted of two single centre, retrospective cohortstudies (Cosio et al., 1999a; Sung, Althoen, Howell,Ojo, & Merion, 2001), which, according to Aus-tralian National Health and Medical ResearchCouncil guidelines (Australian Government, 2005),provide low-level evidence. None of the otherguidelines referred to evidence substantiating theinclusion of any psychosocial criteria (Table 1).
Discussion
Our analysis shows that psychosocial criteria,especially relating to non-compliance and smoking,are commonly included in Australian practice guide-lines relating to patient suitability for kidney trans-plantation. The 63% of transplant programmes usingformal criteria for patient selection in this study was fargreater than the 7% found by Levenson and Olbrisch(1993) in a survey of North American kidneytransplant programs conducted in 1990. This findingcorresponds with the general increase in prevalence andusage of practice guidelines. In terms of the psychoso-cial criteria analysed in this study, the inconsistencybetween units again echoes Levenson and Olbrisch’sfindings. The most notable departure from thisprevious survey is the markedly greater importancegiven to smoking status in the current study.
Four main issues relating to the nature andpresentation of the included psychosocial criteriaemerged from our analysis:
(i)
a lack of detail concerning the specific beha-viours or characteristics of the patient, to whichthe psychosocial criteria refer,ARTIC
LEIN
PRES
S
Table 1
Inclusion details and illustrative examples of psychosocial criteria in eigth Australian practice guidelines for determining patient suitability for kidney transplantation (n ¼ 8)
Category of
criterion
No. of guidelines
with criterion type
Priority Extent of
descriptive/defining
detail
Assessment
recommendation
Treatment/action
recommendation
Evidence cited Illustrative examples
Non-compliance 7 � 1 absolute
contraindication
� 4 relative
contraindication
� 2
recommendationa
� 7 had no
definition� 1 recommended
a psychosocial
assessment
� 6 had no
recommendation
� 7 had no
recommendation� 7 cited no
supporting
research
� ‘Non-compliance’
� ‘Patients who have displayed
significant, recalcitrant,
previous non-compliant
behaviour may be at high
risk of graft loss.
Consultants need to assess
the likelihood of substantial
compliance with therapy.’
� ‘Non-compliance which is
felt likely to reduce the
chance of successful long
term transplantation’
Psychological issues 4 � 2 relative
contraindication
� 2
recommendationa
� 3 cited specific
characteristics—
no definitions
� 1 cited general
psychological
state—no
definition
� 2 recommended
evaluation by
social worker,
clinical
psychologist, or
psychiatrist
� 2 had no
recommendation
� 4 had no
recommendation� 4 cited no
supporting
research
� ‘Patient assessment:
yemotional functioning,
major life stresses y’
Psychiatric
conditions
6 � 3 relative
contraindication
� 3
recommendationa
� 6 had no
definition� 1 recommended
a psychiatric
evaluation
� 5 had no
recommendation
� 6 had no
recommendation� 6 cited no
supporting
research
� ‘Patients with cognitive and
personality disorders require
a psychiatric evaluation to
ascertain the likelihood of
compliance post
transplantation.’
� Psychiatric disturbance
Social support 1 � 1
recommendationa� 1 moderately
detailed� 1 recommended
evaluation by� 1 had no
recommendation� 1 cited no
supporting� ‘Support System Assessment
y Family—members, roles,
K.
An
derso
net
al.
/S
ocia
lS
cience
&M
edicin
e6
4(
20
07
)2
10
7–
21
14
2110
ARTIC
LEIN
PRES
Sdefinition social worker or
clinical
psychologist
research interactions, functioning and
problem solving skills y
Social—extended family,
friends, social support
network’
Financial/vocational
circumstance
1 � 1
recommendationa� 1 had
moderately
detailed
definition
� 1 recommended
evaluation by
social worker or
clinical
psychologist
� 1 had no
recommendation� 1 cited no
supporting
research
� ‘Patient Assessment: y
Vocational—Type of
occupation, length of
employment, stability of
present job. Financial—
Sources of income and
adequacy for future medical
needs.’
Smoking 8 � 3 absolute
contraindication
� 3 relative
contraindication
� 2
recommendationa
� 2 had specific
smoking status
with time
parameters
� 4 had specific
smoking status
without time
parameters
� 2 had
ambiguous
smoking status
� 8 had no
recommendations� 1 recommended
treatment via
QUIT smoking
program
� 2 recommended
treatment via
strong
encouragement
� 5 had no
recommendations
� 1 cited
supporting
research
� 7 cited no
supporting
research
� ‘continuing cigarette
smoking’
� ‘Non-smoker (for X3
months; if smoking history
X10 pack years’
� ‘Non smoker and remains a
Non smoker’
Substance abuse 4 � 2 relative
contraindication
� 2
recommendationa
� 1 had
moderately
detailed
definition
� 3 had no
definition
� 1 recommended
psychological
assessment
� 3 had no
recommendations
� 4 had no
recommendations� 4 cited no
supporting
research
� ‘Psychological evaluation
may be required to determine
long term avoidance of illicit
drug use due to the high rate
of reuse.’
aRecommendation for further investigation.
K.
An
derso
net
al.
/S
ocia
lS
cience
&M
edicin
e6
4(
20
07
)2
10
7–
21
14
2111
ARTICLE IN PRESSK. Anderson et al. / Social Science & Medicine 64 (2007) 2107–21142112
(ii)
a lack of clear methods for assessing thesecriteria,(iii)
a lack of recommendations for treating orremedying contraindicated conditions, and(iv)
a lack of evidence justifying the inclusion of thecriteria.These findings echo those of a similar survey ofguidelines for cardiac procedures (Giacomini et al.,2001).
Lack of detail
The brevity of the descriptions of the psychoso-cial criteria included in the guidelines renders themvulnerable to both subjective and idiosyncraticinterpretation. Even when some description wasincluded, the criteria generally remained vague andambiguous. This increases the potential for incon-sistent interpretation and for personal values andattitudes to colour these interpretations. Arguably,this decreases the transparency of the patientselection process, rendering it less open to publicscrutiny (Institute of Medicine, 2003).
Lack of assessment methods and treatment
recommendations
The almost universal lack of recommendations onhow to assess psychosocial criteria is perhaps notsurprising. Psychosocial characteristics are, by theirnature, difficult to observe and measure. This islikely to increase clinical uncertainty and thereliance on heuristics and stereotypes, particularlyin a busy hospital (Stangor, 2000). It has beensuggested that such reliance results in the differ-ential treatment of patient groups—particularlyminority groups—and that it exacerbates disadvan-tage in access to treatment (Institute of Medicine,2003).
The absence of any recommendations for treat-ment or action to remedy contraindicated beha-viours or conditions—with the exception ofsmoking—suggests a system of selection thatfocuses on ruling people out of transplant suitabilityrather than working towards ruling them in. Thisimplies widespread use of a utilitarian system ofhealth distribution that prioritises treatment forthose likely to derive the greatest benefit, ratherthan for those most in need (Giacomini et al., 2000).Applying such a principle to healthcare allocation isethically contentious (Giacomini et al., 2000).
Lack of substantiating evidence
Contrary to the prevailing doctrine of EBM,almost no research evidence in support of theinclusion of psychosocial criteria was cited in thepractice guidelines. This might reflect the lack of anevidence base (Dobbels et al., 2001). What evidencesupports the inclusion of those psychosocial criter-ia—smoking and non-compliance—that featuremost commonly in Australian clinical practiceguidelines?
A number of retrospective case reviews or case-control studies provide some evidence of anassociation between smoking and post-transplanta-tion outcomes, mostly from single-transplant cen-tres (Chuang, Chan, Ho, & Parikh, 2004; Cosioet al., 1999b; Gill, Kausz, & Pereira, 2002; Kasiske& Klinger, 2000; Matas et al., 2001; Ponticelli,Cesana, Montagnino, & Tarantino, 2002). There isno supporting evidence from randomised controlledtrials or prospective cohort studies which explored,as one of their primary objectives, the associationbetween pre-transplant smoking and post-trans-plantation outcomes (Australian Kidney Founda-tion & Australia New Zealand Society ofNephrology, 2005).
There is little evidence to support an associationbetween pre-transplant non-compliance and poorpost-transplant outcomes. Although a robust asso-ciation has been demonstrated between post-trans-plant non-compliance and late acute rejection andgraft loss (Vlaminck et al., 2004), the associationbetween pre- and post-transplant non-complianceremains unclear (Brickman & Fins, 1996; Butkus,Dottes, Meydrech, & Barber, 2001; Douglas,Blixen, & Bartucci, 1996).
Butkus and colleagues reported an associationbetween pre-transplant substance abuse, but notpre-transplant non-compliance, and post-transplantnon-compliance (Butkus et al., 2001). Two small,retrospective, case–control studies reported anassociation between pre-transplant non-complianceand transplant outcomes (Brickman & Fins, 1996;Douglas et al., 1996). Significant concerns regardingthe quality of these studies include the lack of astandardised assessment of non-compliance, poten-tial observer bias and non-standard reporting ofresults. Consistent with the findings of literaturereviews (Dobbels et al., 2001), it would appear thatthe failure to cite supporting evidence reflects thelack of evidence that psychosocial factors measur-able before transplantation affect outcomes.
ARTICLE IN PRESSK. Anderson et al. / Social Science & Medicine 64 (2007) 2107–2114 2113
As no information was collected about adherencewith the patient selection guidelines collected in thisstudy, we cannot determine to what degree theyreflect real-life practice. Furthermore, our analysiscannot take into account the patient selectionprocesses of the six transplanting units lackingdocumented guidelines. That said, the guidelinescollected in this study provide important informationabout professional bodies’ and clinical managers’views of ‘ideal’ practice and are likely to influence, ifnot dictate, clinical practice in most Australian units.
Comparison with other national guidelines
Psychosocial criteria are also commonly includedin American (Kasiske et al., 2001), Canadian (Knollet al., 2005) and European (ERA-EDTA, 2000)national/regional-level guidelines. However, thesenational/regional guidelines included substantiallymore descriptive detail and recommendations forassessment and remediation. While efforts toprovide levels of supporting evidence are apparentin those national guidelines, the overall paucity ofsuch evidence is equally apparent.
Conclusions
A transparent and equitable system of patientselection should be a key objective of organtransplantation programmes. In the absence of astrong evidence base to support the inclusion ofpsychosocial criteria in clinical guidelines, theirpriority requires attention and debate.
Pending further research, we strongly recommendthat transplant programs review their patientselection guidelines to identify unclear and untestedpsychosocial criteria and resolve them. Such analy-sis could verify psychosocial characteristics relevantto suitability for transplantation, and clarify therationale for their inclusion. Meanwhile, in theabsence of a compelling case for including anyparticular psychosocial criterion, considerationshould be given to removing it from existingguidelines.
Equitable access to treatment requires furthermultidisciplinary analysis of the true relevance ofpsychosocial characteristics to transplant outcomes.
Acknowledgements
This study was undertaken as part of the IMPAKTStudy, funded by the National Health and Medical
Research Council (NHMRC), Project Grant#236204. Kate Anderson is supported by an Aus-tralian Postgraduate Award. Alan Cass is supportedby a Jacquot Research Establishment Award fromthe Royal Australasian College of Physicians. JoanCunningham is supported by an NHMRC CareerDevelopment Award #283310. Dr. Peter Arnoldassisted in the preparation of this paper.
References
Australian Government. (2005). NHMRC additional levels of
evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of
guidelines pp. 1–15. Canberra: NHMRC.
Australian Kidney Foundation & Australia New Zealand Society
of Nephrology. (2005). The CARI Guidelines—caring for
Australians with renal impairment.
Brickman, A., & Fins, A. (1996). Kidney allograft survival:
Relationship to dialysis compliance and other behaviors.
Dialysis and Transplantation, 25(2), 88.
Butkus, D. E., Dottes, A. L., Meydrech, E. F., & Barber, W. H.
(2001). Effect of poverty and other socioeconomic variables
on renal allograft survival. Transplantation, 72(2), 261–266.
Chuang, P., Chan, L., Ho, P. M., & Parikh, C. R. (2004).
Predictors of cardiovascular events and associated mortality
within two years of kidney transplantation. Transplantation
Proceedings, 36(5), 1387–1391.
Cosio, F. G., Falkenhain, M. E., Pesavento, T. E., Yim, S.,
Alamir, A., Henry, M. L., et al. (1999a). Patient survival after
renal transplantation: II. The impact of smoking. Clinical
Transplantation, 334–336.
Cosio, F. G., Falkenhain, M. E., Pesavento, T. E., Yim, S.,
Alamir, A., Henry, M. L., et al. (1999b). Patient survival after
renal transplantation: II. The impact of smoking. Clinical
Transplantation, 13(4), 336–341.
Dew, M. A., Switzer, G. E., DiMartini, A. F., Matukaitis, J.,
Fitzgerald, M. G., & Kormos, R. L. (2000). Psychosocial
assessments and outcomes in organ transplantation. Progress
in Transplantation, 10(4), 239–259 quiz 260-231.
Dobbels, F., De Geest, S., Cleemput, I., Fischler, B., Kesteloot,
K., Vanhaecke, J., et al. (2001). Psychosocial and behavioral
selection criteria for solid organ transplantation. Progress in
Transplantation, 11(2), 121–130.
Douglas, S., Blixen, C., & Bartucci, M. (1996). Relationship
between pretransplant noncompliance and posttransplant
outcomes in renal transplant recipients. Journal of Transpla-
tation Coordination, 6(2), 53–58.
ERA-EDTA. (2000). Evaluation, selection and preparation of the
potential transplant recipient. Nephrology Dialysis Transplan-
tation, 15(Suppl 7), 3–38.
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1992). Evidence-
based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of
medicine. Journal of American Medical Association, 268(17),
2420–2425.
Field, M., & Lohr, K. N. (1990). Clinical practice guidelines:
Directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Giacomini, M. K., Cook, D. J., Streiner, D. L., & Anand, S. S.
(2001). Guidelines as rationing tools: A qualitative analysis of
ARTICLE IN PRESSK. Anderson et al. / Social Science & Medicine 64 (2007) 2107–21142114
psychosocial patient selection criteria for cardiac procedures.
CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 164(5),
634–640 (see comment).
Giacomini, M. K., Streiner, D. L., & Anand, S. S. (2000). Using
practice guidelines to allocate medical technologies. Interna-
tional Journal of Technological Assessment in Health Care,
16(4), 987–1002.
Gill, J. S., Kausz, A. T., & Pereira, B. J. (2002). Mortality after
kidney transplant failure: The impact of non-immunologic
factors. Kidney International, 62(5), 1875–1883.
Institute of Medicine. (2003). Unequal treatment: Confronting
racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare. Washington: The
National Academies Press.
Kasiske, B., Cangro, C., Hariharan, S., Hricik, D., Kerman, R.,
Roth, D., et al. (2001). The evaluation of renal transplant
candidates: Clinical practice guidelines. American Journal of
Transplantation, 2(Suppl 1), 5–95.
Kasiske, B. L., & Klinger, D. (2000). Cigarette smoking in renal
transplant recipients. Journal of the American Society of
Nephrology, 11(4), 753–759.
Knoll, G., Cockfield, S., Blydt-Hansen, T., Baran, D., Kiberd, B.,
Landsberg, D., et al. (2005). Canadian Society of Transplan-
tation consensus guidelines on eligibility for kidney trans-
plantation. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal,
173(10), 1181–1184.
Levenson, J. L., & Olbrisch, M. E. (1993). Psychosocial
evaluation of organ transplant candidates. A comparative
survey of process, criteria, and outcomes in heart, liver, and
kidney transplantation. Psychosomatics, 34(4), 314–323.
Matas, A. J., Payne, W. D., Sutherland, D. E., Humar, A.,
Gruessner, R. W., Kandaswamy, R., et al. (2001). 2500 living
donor kidney transplants: A single-center experience. Annals
of Surgery, 234(2), 149–164.
McKneally, M., Dickens, B., Meslin, E., & Singer, P. (1997).
Bioethics for clinicians: Resource allocation. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 157(2), 163–167.
Norheim, O. F. (1999). Healthcare rationing—are addi-
tional criteria needed for assessing evidence based clinical
practice guidelines? British Medical Journal, 319(7222),
1426–1429.
Ponticelli, C., Cesana, B., Montagnino, G., & Tarantino, A.
(2002). Risk factors for late kidney allograft failure. Kidney
International, 62(5), 1848–1854.
Stangor, C. (2000). Stereotypes and prejudice. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Sung, R. S., Althoen, M., Howell, T. A., Ojo, A. O., & Merion,
R. M. (2001). Excess risk of renal allograft loss asso-
ciated with cigarette smoking. Transplantation, 71(12),
1752–1757.
Vlaminck, H., Maes, B., Evers, G., Verbeke, G., Lerut, E., Van
Damme, B., et al. (2004). Prospective study on late
consequences of subclinical non-compliance with immuno-
suppressive therapy in renal transplant patients. American
Journal of Transplantation, 4(9), 1509–1513.