Table 3.

Fine-Gray proportional subdistribution hazard model for time from evaluation to receiving a deceased-donor kidney transplanta (n=1036)b

VariablesModel 1Model 2Model 3
Subdistribution Hazard Ratio95% Confidence IntervalSubdistribution Hazard Ratio95% Confidence IntervalSubdistribution Hazard Ratio95% Confidence Interval
Model 1
 Race/ethnicity
  Non-Hispanic White1 (ref)1 (ref)1 (ref)
  Non-Hispanic Black0.910.67 to 1.230.920.68 to 1.240.920.67 to 1.26
Model 2
 Other demographic characteristics
  Age (in yr)0.980.97 to 0.990.990.98 to 1.00
 Medical factors
  Charlson Comorbidity Index0.820.75 to 0.900.850.77 to 0.93
Model 3
 Final status after KASc4.173.03 to 5.73
 Cultural factors
  Overall religiosityd0.930.88 to 0.98
 Psychosocial characteristics
  Social supportd1.031.00 to 1.05
 Transplant knowledge and education
  Number of learning activitiesd1.101.02 to 1.19
  • Higher value, greater amount (or higher score) on a particular variable. KAS, Kidney Allocation System; DDKT, deceased-donor kidney transplant; LDKT, living-donor kidney transplant; SHR, subdistribution hazard ratio.

  • a Main event, received DDKT; competing event, LDKT, died; censoring, still on waitlist or other removal; missing, unknown donor type.

  • b Sample size used for Models 1, 2, and 3: n=1036 (i.e., those with complete data on all variables; 231 received a transplant, 525 died, 280 censored).

  • c Final status after KAS refers to whether the patient’s ultimate outcome (i.e., transplant, died, censored) occurred either before or after the KAS policy changes of 2014 to all of the tables that include this variable.

  • d The SHR for these variables are per one-point higher in each scale.