Abstract: FR-PO1139
Kidney Transplant Discussions Within Hemodialysis Patient Social Networks
Session Information
- Transplantation: Clinical - Transplant Access, Recipient Evaluation, Living Donors, Pregnancy, and More
October 23, 2026 | Location: Exhibit Hall A, Convention Center
Abstract Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Category: Transplantation
- 2002 Transplantation: Clinical
Authors
- Granados, A. Javier, Temple University Health System Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Chang, Emily, Temple University Health System Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- McDonald, Paige, Temple University Health System Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Gade, Varenya R., Temple University Health System Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Gillespie, Avrum, Temple University Health System Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Background
Social networks can strongly influence health behaviors, decision-making, and outcomes in chronic disease. For hemodialysis (HD) patients, HD clinics may represent an important setting where peer relationships shape kidney transplant (KT) knowledge, attitudes, and readiness. We evaluated how HD patients discuss KT within HD clinic social networks. Specifically, we examined: (1) how many patients had social network members, (2) among those with networks, how many discussed KT, (3) what transplant topics were discussed, and (4) whether KT discussion was associated with readiness to request a living donor kidney transplant (LDKT).
Methods
We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey of HD patients (2018-2020) conducted at two Mid-Atlantic HD facilities. Ego networks were constructed for each participant, capturing up to 12 social ties within the clinic. Network measures included network size and communication about general topics, kidney disease, and transplantation. Participants also reported the relative frequency (0-10 scale) of specific KT-related discussion topics. The primary outcome was readiness to request a LDKT.
Results
Among 117 surveyed patients, 74 (63%) reported at least one social network tie within the HD clinic. Among those with networks, 30 (41%) discussed KT with at least one peer, and one-quarter discussed KT with multiple peers. Median network size was similar between groups (2.5). Among participants discussing KT (n=30), common topics included transplant eligibility (97%), the evaluation process (90%), and the waitlist (83%). LDKT discussions were more common than DDKT discussions (70% vs 53%; n=21 vs 16) and focused on donor benefits (95%), donor risks (90%), and who to ask for donation (81%). Although most participants were not yet ready to ask for a living donor (77%), a greater, though not statistically significant, proportion of those discussing transplantation with peers were contemplating, planning, or had already asked for donation compared to those without transplant discussions (33% vs 20%).
Conclusion
HD clinic social networks may serve as important channels for dissemination of transplant-related knowledge and encouragement of transplant-seeking behaviors, particularly discussions surrounding LDKT. Leveraging peer networks within dialysis centers may represent a promising strategy to improve transplant readiness and expand access to living donor kidney transplantation.