Kidney transplantation in Africa - workforce, capabilities, and perceived barriers

Malcolm Davies; Sheetal Chiba; Wesley van Hougenhouck-Tulleken; Awatef Azzabi; Mouna Hamouda; Intissar Haddiya; David Atuhe; Elhadji Fary Ka; Ebun Bamgboye; Mohamed Mongi Bacha; Transplantation Committee of the African Association of Nephrology (AFRAN)

doi:10.1093/ndt/gfag030

Kidney transplantation in Africa - workforce, capabilities, and perceived barriers

Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2026 Feb 18:gfag030. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfag030. Online ahead of print.

Collaborators

Transplantation Committee of the African Association of Nephrology (AFRAN):
Khadhar Meriam, Cherif Tehir Mohamed, Danielle Fouda Hermine, Ba Bacary, Maaloum El, Allah Izidbih Ahmed, Maiga Moussa Tondi Zeinabou, Shebani Abdulhafid, Habchi Khadidja, Sally Samir, Ip Min Wan Davy, Shoo Jacqueline, Adelaja Aredemi, Cheptinga Phillip, Gamarco Sossal Oussmane, Ackoundou N'Guessan Clément

Affiliations

¹ University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
² Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Ga-Rankuwa, South Africa.
³ University of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia.
⁴ Monastir University Hospital, Monstir, Tunisia.
⁵ Université Mohammed Premier, Oujda, Morocco.
⁶ Mother Kevin Postgraduate Medical School, Kampala, Uganda.
⁷ Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Aristide Le Dantec, Dakar, Senegal.
⁸ St Nicholas Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria.
⁹ Université Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.

PMID: 41707208
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfag030

Abstract

Background: Access to kidney transplantation (KT) in Africa is reported to be limited. Lack of registry data and reliance on single-centre reports limits an accurate overview of KT on the continent. We therefore undertook a survey of all African Association of Nephrology (AFRAN) affiliated nephrologists to describe KT practices and challenges on the continent.

Methods: Voluntary participants (n = 317) were recruited from AFRAN social media platforms using snowball sampling. Participants completed an anonymised survey detailing KT practices and barriers using a Likert scale. Training and practice in KT and perceived barriers were described for the survey as a whole and sub-analysed by KT programme capability and country.

Results: Most respondents (66.9%) were active in KT to some degree; 73.2% reported having received KT training. KT-active respondents were heterogeneously distributed, with the majority practicing in North Africa, Nigeria, and South Africa. 71.3% of respondents, representing 28 nations, reported access to a KT programme, with 18 nations reporting at least 1 local centre performing engraftment; deceased donor (DD) engraftment was available in only 6 nations. State-funded KT was available in 12 nations with the remainder relying on mixed or patient-funded models. Formalized KT regulation was reported by 26 nations. Cost of KT, lack of government support and policy, and sociocultural factors were commonly identified as barriers to KT.

Conclusion: Resource limitations continue to restrict access to KT in Africa. Government support is required to facilitate funding and policy development to overcome these challenges.

Keywords: Africa; barriers; capabilities; kidney transplantation; workforce.

© The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site-for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.