Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26673985›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

Patient experiences with self-monitoring renal function after renal transplantation: results from a single-center prospective pilot study.

Céline L van Lint, Paul Jm van der Boog, Wenxin Wang, Willem-Paul Brinkman, Ton Jm Rövekamp, Mark A Neerincx, Ton J Rabelink, Sandra van Dijk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The Effect of Teach-Back Training on Self Management in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Clinical Trial.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Céline L van LintDepartment of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Paul Jm van der BoogDepartment of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Wenxin WangFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands ; Department of Technology in Healthcare, Prevention and Health, Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Willem-Paul BrinkmanFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Ton Jm RövekampDepartment of Technology in Healthcare, Prevention and Health, Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Mark A NeerincxFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Ton J RabelinkDepartment of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Sandra van DijkDepartment of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands ; Department of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLDelft University of Technology · NLNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfter a kidney transplantation, patients have to visit the hospital often to monitor for early signs of graft rejection. Self-monitoring of creatinine in addition to blood pressure at home could alleviate the burden of frequent outpatient visits, but only if patients are willing to self-monitor and if they adhere to the self-monitoring measurement regimen. A prospective pilot study was conducted to assess patients' experiences and satisfaction. MATERIALS AND

methodsFor 3 months after transplantation, 30 patients registered self-measured creatinine and blood pressure values in an online record to which their physician had access to. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up to assess satisfaction, attitude, self-efficacy regarding self-monitoring, worries, and physician support. Adherence was studied by comparing the number of registered with the number of requested measurements.

resultsPatients were highly motivated to self-monitor kidney function, and reported high levels of general satisfaction. Level of satisfaction was positively related to perceived support from physicians (P<0.01), level of self-efficacy (P<0.01), and amount of trust in the accuracy of the creatinine meter (P<0.01). The use of both the creatinine and blood pressure meter was considered pleasant and useful, despite the level of trust in the accuracy of the creatinine device being relatively low. Trust in the accuracy of the creatinine device appeared to be related to level of variation in subsequent measurement results, with more variation being related to lower levels of trust. Protocol adherence was generally very high, although the range of adherence levels was large and increased over time.

conclusionPatients' high levels of satisfaction suggest that at-home monitoring of creatinine and blood pressure after transplantation offers a promising strategy. Important prerequisites for safe implementation in transplant care seem to be support from physicians and patients' confidence in both their own self-monitoring skills and the accuracy of the devices used.

Indexed as

adherenceblood pressurecreatininekidney transplantationsatisfactionself-monitoring

Identifiers

PMID26673985
PMCPMC4676625
OpenAlexW2192112220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.