Mixed-methods study explores peer-mentoring benefits for kidney transplant recipients, suggesting effective support strategies.
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups may benefit from peer support because of cultural differences in the transplant process. We evaluated patient and provider perspectives on a KTR peer-mentoring program for underrepresented groups. METHODS: Single-center mixed-methods study including 2 focus groups (virtual and in-person) and surveys with 12 Black and Hispanic KTRs. We explored 4 domains: relevance of peer-mentoring, mentor characteristics, program expectations, and requirements for program success. We used interprofessional content analysis and deductive thematic analysis to identify themes. Transplant providers (n = 17) completed a separate survey on perceived barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Among 557 quotes and 101 codes, we identified 16 themes across 4 domains. KTRs emphasized the need for peer mentorship early in the process and valued empathetic role models to address uncertainty and fears and discuss waitlist and medication challenges. The need for culturally tailored approaches, given disparities in transplantation and limited trust in the healthcare system, was highlighted. KTRs prioritized attitude (90%) and life experiences (67%) for peer matching. Suggested mentor roles included education and advocacy. KTRs favored mentor accessibility, in-person or virtual. Boundaries and mentor support were considered relevant. Among providers, 94% supported the program. Facilitators included mentor training (81%), language (71%), and mentor selection (63%). Barriers included confidentiality (63%), mentor availability, and health literacy (both 50%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers strongly supported a peer-mentoring program for underrepresented groups to help KTRs navigate medical, psychosocial, and cultural transplant challenges. These insights will direct program development and implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cojuc‐Konigsberg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: