Psychological Evaluations Before Uterus Transplantation

  • Stina JärvholmEmail author


Uterus transplantation (UTx) is a novel form of transplantation, and therefore it also needs a novel form of psychological evaluation emerging from the experiences of both solid organ transplantation and reproductive medicine. The woman, her partner, and the living donor are the focus of the psychological evaluation prior to UTx. This chapter covers specific themes to evaluate prior to UTx and suggestions of assessment tools.


  1. Ahnquist J, Wamala SP, Lindstrom M. Social determinants of health—a question of social or economic capital? Interaction effects of socioeconomic factors on health outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(6):930–9. Scholar
  2. Ahrnsbrak R, Bose J, Hedden S, Lipari R, Park-Lee E. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Rockville: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2017.Google Scholar
  3. Benzing C, Hau H-M, Kurtz G, Schmelzle M, Tautenhahn H-M, Morgül MH, et al. Long-term health-related quality of life of living kidney donors: a single-center experience. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):2833–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins CA, Labott SM. Psychological assessment of candidates for solid organ transplantation. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2007;38(2):150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dickens BM. Legal and ethical issues of uterus transplantation. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;133(1):125–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forsberg A, Nilsson M, Krantz M, Olausson M. The essence of living parental liver donation–donors’ lived experiences of donation to their children. Pediatr Transplant. 2004;8(4):372–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gross C, Messersmith EE, Hong BA, Jowsey SG, Jacobs C, Gillespie BW, et al. Health-related quality of life in kidney donors from the last five decades: results from the RELIVE study. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(11):2924–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jin J, Sklar GE, Min Sen Oh V, Chuen Li S. Factors affecting therapeutic compliance: a review from the patient’s perspective. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2008;4(1):269–86.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Johannesson L, Järvholm S. Uterus transplantation: current progress and future prospects. Int J Womens Health. 2016;8:43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johansson R, Carlbring P, Heedman Å, Paxling B, Andersson G. Depression, anxiety and their comorbidity in the Swedish general population: point prevalence and the effect on health-related quality of life. Peer J. 2013;1:e98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Järvholm S, Warren AM, Jalmbrant M, Kvarnström N, Testa G, Johannesson L. Preoperative psychological evaluation of uterus transplant recipients, partners, and living donors: suggested framework. Am J Transplant. 2018;18(11):2641–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kvarnström N, Järvholm S, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P, Olausson M, Brännström M. Live donors of the initial observational study of uterus transplantation—psychological and medical follow-up until 1 year after surgery in the 9 cases. Transplantation. 2017;101(3):664–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lavoué V, Vigneau C, Duros S, Boudjema K, Levêque J, Piver P, et al. Which donor for uterus transplants: brain-dead donor or living donor? A systematic review. Transplantation. 2017;101(2):267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindström B, Eriksson M. Salutogenesis. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2005;59(6):440–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perez-San-Gregorio M, Martín-Rodríguez A, Luque-Budia A, Conrad R. Concerns, mental health, and quality of life in living kidney donation–parent donor candidates worry less about themselves. Front Psychol. 2017;8:564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rutter M. Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1987;57(3):316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Warren A, Testa G, Anthony T, McKenna G, Klintmalm G, Wallis K, et al. Live nondirected uterus donors: psychological characteristics and motivation for donation. Am J Transplant. 2018;18(5):1122–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. White-Williams C, Grady KL, Naftel DC, Myers S, Wang E, Rybarczyk B. The relationship of socio-demographic factors and satisfaction with social support at five and 10 yr after heart transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2013;27(2):267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Institute of Clinical SciencesGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations