Objective: Donors’ quality of life (QOL) and social support were investigated in this study. Method: The SF-36 scale and social support scale were used to survey the quality of life and social support of donors of live liver transplantation. Result: The PCS (Physical Correlated Score) is 84.78 ± 13.21, the MCS (Mental Correlated Score) is 80.71 ± 14.65, and the total score is 165.49 ± 22.63. The results show the significant difference at GH (General Health) & VT (Vitality) domain regarding the age, P < 0.05; while there’s a significant difference at BP (Body Pain) domain regarding the sex, P < 0.05. The social support score of male & female donors are 37.75 ± 7.50 and 44.00 ± 4.30, and the difference is significant, P < 0.05. The MCS and the social support score are correlated, the correlation factor is 0.483, P < 0.05. Conclusion: There’s no significant difference between the donors and the normal population. The age is the risk factor of QOL, and it should be paid more attention when we select the donor. Excellent social support relates to high quality of life.
The liver transplantation is the only effective therapy of many end-staged liver disease patients, but the lack of corpse liver impedes the development of liver transplantation, however, the live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides a new source of donated liver [
The research objects of this study are the LDLT donors who have received the operation in our department. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects participating in the study.
The cross-sectional investigative design was adopted in this study, and the instrument is the questionnaire. The questionnaires were delivered by email and mail. We sent 8 emails, and all were answered, while we sent 15 mails, and only 10 of them were answered.
The questionnaire was developed from the SF-36 Quality of Life Scale (Chinese Version) which was translated by Zhejiang University School of Medicine and the Social Support Scale. The SF-36 scale includes 8 domains, which are physical functioning (PF), role-physical (RP), body pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social functioning (SF), role-emotional (RE), and mental health (MH), and there’re 10 items in the Social Support Scale.
The reliability of the questionnaire is 0.89, and all data were entered into SPSS16.0 to analyze, and mean, standard deviation, t-test, relation were used.
1) The QOL Score: the method in the literature 6 was adopted, and more in
2) Transition Score = ((Original Score-Mini Score)/Score Range) × 100
Domain | Computation rules | Possible min & max | Score range |
---|---|---|---|
PF | 3a + 3b + 3c + 3d + 3e + 3f + 3g + 3h + 3i + 3j | 10.30 | 20 |
RP | 4a + 4b + 4c + 4d | 4.8 | 4 |
BP | 7 + 8 | 2.11 | 9 |
GH | 1 + 11a + 11b + 11c + 11d | 5.25 | 20 |
VT | 9a + 9e + 9g + 9i | 4.24 | 20 |
SF | 6 + 10 | 2.10 | 8 |
RE | 5a + 5b + 5c | 3.6 | 3 |
MH | 9b + 9c + 9d + 9f + 9h | 5.30 | 25 |
There were 18 donors enrolled in this study, and the mean age is 35.11 ± 8.49 years old, the mean height is 165.06 ± 10.01 cm, the mean weight is 62.72 ± 11.88 kg, the mean post-operation time is 529.61 ± 395.26 days, and donors have 1.35 ± 0.93 children.
Donors were mostly female (n = 10, 55.6%); 12 (66.7%) were graduate degrees, 2 (11.1%) were high school, and the rest 4 (22.2%) donors were illiteracy, elementary school, junior high school and college; 4 (22.2%) were office workers, 3 (16.7%) were farmers, 2 (11.1%) were unemployed, 1 (5.6%) was technician, 4 (22.2%) were other profession; 14 (77.8%) were married, 3 (16.7%) were unmarried, 1 (5.6%) was divorced; 13 (72.2%) were normal economic status, 3 (16.7%) were poor, 2 (11.1%) were rich; 5 (27.8%) donors reported relatively poor sexual life, 3 (16.7%) were almost normal, 7 (38.9%) were normal.
The donors were divided into two groups according to the age, and they were young group (18 - 44 yr) and middle-aged group (45 - 64 yr). Two groups show significant difference on the domain of GH, VT, PCS and Total Score, and P < 0.05. The score of young group is higher than the middle-aged group. Complete information is shown in
Two different groups show significant difference on the domain of BP, P < 0.05, and the score of male group is higher than the female group. Complete information is shown in
We can conclude from
Two sexual groups show significant difference on the total score of social support, P < 0.05, and the score of female group is higher than the male group. Besides, two age groups show significant difference on the domain of “Objective Support”, P < 0.05, and the score of young group is higher than the middle-aged group. Complete information is shown in
Domain | 18 - 44 yrs | 45 - 64 yrs | T statistics | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
PF | 96.79 ± 3.17 | 86.25 ± 8.54 | 2.421 | 0.088 |
RP | 96.43 ± 13.36 | 50.00 ± 57.74 | 1.596 | 0.206 |
BP | 92.86 ± 9.35 | 86.11 ± 10.64 | 1.238 | 0.233 |
GH | 70.36 ± 10.09 | 56.25 ± 11.09 | 2.420 | 0.028* |
VT | 83.57 ± 10.46 | 70.00 ± 13.54 | 2.157 | 0.047* |
SF | 90.18 ± 18.46 | 75.00 ± 42.08 | 0.702 | 0.528 |
RE | 78.57 ± 28.06 | 66.67 ± 27.22 | 0.752 | 0.463 |
MH | 80.86 ± 16.47 | 75.00 ± 21.01 | 0.593 | 0.561 |
PCS | 89.11 ± 6.68 | 69.65 ± 20.07 | 3.245 | 0.005* |
MCS | 83.29 ± 12.61 | 71.67 ± 19.65 | 1.444 | 0.168 |
Total | 172.40 ± 17.21 | 141.32 ± 24.83 | 2.905 | 0.01* |
“*” indicating P < 0.05, the two different groups of age showed significant difference on that domain.
Domain | Male | Female | T statistics | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
PF | 95.21 ± 2.67 | 94.13 ± 8.43 | 0.353 | 0.730 |
RP | 96.33 ± 14.32 | 75.32 ± 42.49 | 1.861 | 0.096 |
BP | 98.61 ± 3.93 | 85.56 ± 9.15 | 3.752 | 0.002* |
GH | 68.13 ± 10.67 | 66.50 ± 12.93 | 0.286 | 0.779 |
VT | 77.50 ± 11.95 | 83.00 ± 12.52 | −0.945 | 0.359 |
SF | 75.00 ± 33.41 | 96.25 ± 8.44 | 7.717 | 0.119 |
RE | 79.17 ± 30.54 | 73.33 ± 26.29 | 0.436 | 0.669 |
MH | 75.00 ± 14.93 | 83.20 ± 18.55 | −1.013 | 0.326 |
PCS | 90.43 ± 3.68 | 80.26 ± 16.37 | 1.905 | 0.086 |
MCS | 76.67 ± 16.64 | 83.95 ± 12.80 | −1.051 | 0.309 |
Total | 167.10 ± 20.10 | 164.21 ± 25.48 | 0.262 | 0.797 |
“*” indicating P < 0.05, the two different groups of sex showed significant difference on that domain.
Population | PF | RP | BP | GH | VT | SF | RE | MH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Donors of LDLT (18) | 94.4 ± 6.4 | 86.1 ± 33.5 | 91.4 ± 9.8 | 67.2 ± 11.7 | 80.6 ± 12.2 | 86.8 ± 24.8 | 75.9 ± 27.5 | 79.6 ± 17.1 |
Hangzhou [ | 82.2 ± 19.8 | 81.2 ± 33.6 | 81.5 ± 20.5 | 56.7 ± 20.2 | 52.0 ± 20.9 | 83.0 ± 17.8 | 84.4 ± 32.4 | 59.7 ± 22.7 |
Chinese Americans [ | 79.4 ± 23.4 | 67.5 ± 37.3 | 62.3 ± 21.9 | 58.8 ± 22.7 | 59.0 ± 20.3 | 75.1 ± 22.7 | 61.2 ± 43.7 | 63.9 ± 20.4 |
Americans [ | 84.2 ± 23.3 | 81.0 ± 34.0 | 75.2 ± 23.7 | 72.0 ± 20.3 | 60.9 ± 21.0 | 83.3 ± 22.7 | 81.3 ± 33.0 | 74.7 ± 18.0 |
Items | Objective support score | Subjective support score | Support utilization | Total sore |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male | 10.50 ± 2.56 | 19.38 ± 4.87 | 7.88 ± 1.25 | 37.75 ± 7.50 |
Female | 12.40 ± 2.88 | 22.60 ± 3.54 | 9.10 ± 1.73 | 44.00 ± 4.30 |
T statistics | −1.460 | −1.579 | −1.681 | −2.228 |
P value | 0.164 | 0.134 | 0.112 | 0.041* |
18 - 44 yrs | 12.07 ± 2.97 | 20.21 ± 3.89 | 8.50 ± 1.16 | 40.79 ± 6.34 |
45 - 64 yrs | 9.75 ± 1.26 | 24.25 ± 4.99 | 8.75 ± 2.99 | 42.75 ± 8.14 |
T statistics | 2.290 | −1.729 | −0.164 | −0.516 |
P value | 0.04* | 0.103 | 0.879 | 0.613 |
Total samples | 11.56 ± 2.83 | 21.11 ± 4.35 | 8.56 ± 1.62 | 41.22 ± 6.57 |
“*” indicating P < 0.05.
The Mental Correlated Score (MCS) and the Total Score of Social Support is positive correlated, and the correlation coefficient is 0.483, P < 0.05. The Total Score of SF-36 and the Total Score of Social Support is low-grade positive correlated, and the correlation coefficient is 0.111, P > 0.05. Complete information is shown in
With the skill of LDLT being more advanced, it’s operated more than before. Besides the prognosis, the donors’ health after surgery also deserved the attention. The Quality of life (QOL) and Social Support are the common
PCS | MCS | Overall life quality score | |
---|---|---|---|
Objective support score | 0.118 | 0.392 | 0.322 |
P value | 0.642 | 0.108 | 0.192 |
Subjective support score | −0.462 | 0.307 | −0.071 |
P value | 0.054 | 0.216 | 0.779 |
Support utilization | −0.368 | 0.451 | 0.077 |
P value | 0.133 | 0.06 | 0.761 |
Total score of social support | −0.346 | 0.483 | 0.111 |
P value | 0.160 | 0.042* | 0.661 |
“*” indicating P < 0.05.
evaluation index, and the QOL focus on the healthy status [
The LDLT resolve the lack of corpse liver to a large extent, and the number of this kind of surgery rose rapidly during the past few years [
The sex isn’t the main element when assessing the LDLT [
The QOL of live donors was compared with the one of Hangzhou people [
The score of social support of the research objects was relatively high, and it showed significant difference on the factor of sex, P < 0.05. The score of female was higher than the one of male, which indicated that the female had gained more social support. The male should be given more emotional support, and they should be encouraged to obtain social support. Erim [
The results read that the MCS was positively correlated with the score of Social Support, and the correlation coefficient was 0.483, P < 0.05. The QOL was also positively correlated with the score of Social Support, and the correlation coefficient was 0.111, P > 0.05. The results indicated that enough social support will bring the donors high MCS, which was the same as the results of Yoshino [
The sample of this study is relatively small, and the popularization of results is limited. Further study should be operated in the future.
The QOL and social support of live liver donors were analyzed in this study, and we gained rough results. The results indicated that the QOL of donors were not significantly different from the normal people, and it proved that the LDLT is safe. Moreover, the social support gained from the donors was very optimistic, and enough social support is good for improving the QOL, which will call the healthcare workers’ attention who work in the field of transplantation. And as a result, they will focus on the social support in the follow-up visit.
We would like to give extremely thanks to our colleagues for their help!