Different measures of non-adherence to immunosuppressant (IS) medication have been found to be associated with rejection episodes after successful transplantation. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether graft rejection after renal transplantation is associated with patient-reported IS medication non-adherence and IS trough level variables (IS trough level variability and percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels). Patient-reported non-adherence, IS trough level variability, percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels, and acute biopsy-proven late allograft rejections were assessed in 267 adult renal transplant recipients who were ≥12 months post-transplantation. The rate of rejection was 13.5%. IS trough level variability, percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels as well as patient-reported non-adherence were all significantly and positively associated with rejection, but not with each other. Logistic regression analyses revealed that only the percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels and age at transplantation remained significantly associated with rejection. Particularly, the percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels is associated with acute rejections after kidney transplantation whereas IS trough level variability and patient-reported non-adherence seem to be of subordinate importance. Patient-reported non-adherence and IS trough level variables were not correlated; thus, non-adherence should always be measured in a multi-methodological approach. Further research concerning the best combination of non-adherence measures is needed.

Due to the shortage of cadaveric organs, living kidney donation has begun to serve as the most crucial organ pool. Transplant centers have a legitimate interest in expanding the pool of donors. A psychosocial evaluation is established in transplantation centers to prevent donors from possible emotional harm in the aftermath of donation. We explored if the resilience questionnaire is an appropriate measure of the mental stability. To standardize procedures of psychosocial evaluation and to optimize donor recruitment, we present our evaluation protocol and analyze the causes of exclusion from donation. In a naturalistic design, we compared resilience and quality of life in eligible and excluded donors at the time point of donation. Potential living kidney donors (N = 161) participated in the obligatory psychosomatic evaluation. Quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life, WHOQOL-Bref) and resilience (Resilience Scale, RS-12) were measured. Three months after nephrectomy donors quality of life was screened in a follow-up. In the evaluation interview donors were classified as eligible (n = 142) or excluded (n = 12). Nonrelated donors (n = 3) were excluded from donation significantly more often (p < .011). Eligible donors (M = 78.42, SD = 10.19) had higher values for resilience than excluded donors (M = 72.7, SD = 8.18, p < .04), who showed values comparable to the norm. In all domains of quality of life, eligible donors had significantly higher values than healthy normals (p < .001). After donation health-related quality of life decreased, but was comparable to the norm. A regression analysis showed that resilience was a significant predictor for all dimensions of quality of life before donation (R2 = 10.2–24.6 %). Post-donation quality of life was significantly correlated with pre-donation resilience scores (p < .05). The resilience score predicts high mental quality of life before and after donation. Therefor it can be implemented as a self-rating instrument to further objectify donor’s mental stability. Despite the stressful life event of donation, donor candidates presented high resilience and high levels of quality of life. Therefor our findings support health care providers` intentions to improve living donation. In the group of excluded donors nonrelated persons were overrepresented. Guidelines for the admission of nonrelated donors are currently unclear and need to be optimized.

Ziel des KoMPASS Projekts ist es, eine effektive Fortbildung für onkologisch tätige Ärzte zu entwickeln und zu erproben, die in Bezug auf Konzept, Inhalte und didaktische Methoden die besonderen interaktionellen Herausforderungen mit Tumorpatienten berücksichtigt und die kommunikative Kompetenz der Ärzte verbessert. Hier werden Konzept und didaktische Methoden für ein intensives Kompakttraining (KoMPASS Training) beschrieben, ergänzt um Erfahrungen mit bisher 39 Trainings mit 335 Ärzten und Ergebnisse der Evaluation des Trainings durch die Teilnehmer. Die Rückmeldungen der Teilnehmer nach 4 Monaten sprechen für einen Zugewinn an Selbstwirksamkeit und kommunikativer Kompetenz der Ärzte, für persönliche Entlastung und gelingenden Praxistransfer. Selbst erfahrene Kliniker attestieren dem Training hohe Praxisrelevanz, Nutzen und persönlichen Lerngewinn. Ergebnisse der KoMPASS-Begleitstudie zur Selbstwirksamkeit, Empathie, beruflicher Belastung und kommunikativer Kompetenz werden später publiziert. Goal of the KoMPASS project is to develop and test a training program that effectively improves oncologists’ communication skills. The training draws with regard to concept, content and didactic methods to the specific challenges arising in interactions with cancer patients. Concept and didactical methods for an intensive training (KoMPASS Training) are being presented and complemented with experiences gathered during 39 trainings with 335 physicians, as well as findings from the training evaluation by participants. The participants’ feedback after 4 months indicates successful transfer into clinical practice along with personal relief, improved self-efficacy, and communicative competencies. Even experienced practitioners ascribe high practical usefulness, and personal learning achievements to the KoMPASS training. The results of the concomitant study concerning self-efficacy, empathy, work-related stress and communicative competence will be published later.

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are two chronic diseases that cause a tremendous burden. To reduce this burden, several programmes for optimising the care for these diseases have been developed. In Germany, so-called disease management programmes (DMPs), which combine components of Disease Management and the Chronic Care Model, are applied. These DMPs have proven effective. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for improvement. Current DMPs rarely address self-management of the disease, make no use of peer support, and provide no special assistance for persons with low health literacy and/or low patient activation. The study protocol presented here is for the evaluation of a programme that addresses these possible shortcomings and can be combined with current German DMPs for T2DM and CHD. This programme consists of four components: Meetings of peer support groups Personalised telephone-based health coaching for patients with low literacy and/or low patient activation Personalised patient feedback A browser-based web portal Methods: Study participants will be adults enrolled in a DMP for T2DM and/or CHD and living in North Rhine-Westphalia, a state of the Federal Republic of Germany. Study participants will be recruited with the assistance of their general practitioners by the end of June 2021. Evaluation will be performed as a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with one intervention group and one waiting control group. The intervention group will receive the intervention for 18 months. During this time, the waiting control group will continue with usual care and the usual measures of their DMPs. After 18 months, the waiting control group will also receive a shortened intervention. The primary outcome is number of hospital days. In addition, the effects on self-reported health-state, physical activity, nutrition, and eight different psychological variables will be investigated. Differences between values at month 18 and at the beginning will be compared to judge the effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion: If the intervention proves effective, it may be included into the DMPs for T2DM and CHD. Trial registration: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS)) in early 2019 under the number 00020592. This registry has been affiliated with the WHO Clinical Trials Network (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do) since 2008. It is based on the WHO template, but contains some additional categories for which information has to be given (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=entryfields&messageDE=Beschreibung%20der%20Eingabefelder&messageEN=Description%20of%20entry%20fields ). A release and subsequent number assignment only take place when information for all categories has been given.

Over the last years, living kidney donation (LKD) has been established for patients with endstage renal failure as an alternative to post mortem donation, which is limited by organ scarcity and long lasting waiting periods. From an ethical perspective, the increase in LKD requires that donors’ physical, psychological, and social harm has to be minimized as much as possible and the risk should not exceed the generally expected consequences of nephrectomy. Despite of numerous, mainly retrospective studies about the postoperative outcome of LKD over the last years from different countries, it becomes apparent that there is a lack of comprehensive prospective multicenter research in this field worldwide. Therefore, the main aim of the study is to examine the physical and psychosocial outcome of living kidney donors in a prospective design before and after transplantation in an interdisciplinary approach (surgery, nephrology, psychosocial medicine). The goal of the study is to investigate such aspects as the impact of gender- and age-specific factors on LKD outcome, donor outcome in correlation to the health status of the recipient, the medical and psychosocial risk of a healthy subject undergoing the LKD procedure. The study is carried out as a nationwide multicenter study. All adult living kidney donors with sufficient knowledge in the German, Russian, or Turkish language, informed consent, and place of residence in Germany are included. In a naturalistic design (cohort study), clinical data and self-report measures (questionnaires) of 320 donors are collected before and 8 weeks, 6 and 12 months after donation. Primary outcome parameters are the kidney function (estimated GFR) and the quality of life (SF-36) of the donor. Secondary outcome parameters are data about physical (e.g., wound healing, blood pressure) and psychosocial (fatigue, depression, anxiety, somatization) outcome after donation. Previous studies on the postoperative outcome of living kidney donors have methodological limitations and/or were carried out in countries with different healthcare systems, e.g. United States, Norway, Canada, United Kingdom. Thus, results cannot be generalized and are not particularly applicable to the risks of mainly caucasian living kidney donors in the German healthcare system. The study design overcomes these disadvantages in that it provides a prospective multicenter design. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006552 (22 September 2014).