Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30305260›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Use of Mobile Health Technologies for Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up: Survey Study.

Ann K Eno, Alvin G Thomas, Jessica M Ruck, Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Samantha E Halpern, Madeleine M Waldram, Abimereki D Muzaale, Tanjala S Purnell, Allan B Massie, Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ann K EnoDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1338-9345
Alvin G ThomasDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4911-8192
Jessica M RuckDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5749-5505
Sarah E Van Pilsum RasmussenDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4644-3590
Samantha E HalpernDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7316-1989
Madeleine M WaldramDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5706-4353
Abimereki D MuzaaleDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3287-6061
Tanjala S PurnellDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8661-7911
Allan B MassieDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5288-5125
Jacqueline M Garonzik WangDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2789-7503
Krista L LentineCenter for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9423-4849
Dorry L SegevDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1924-4801
Macey L HendersonDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-1252
Johns Hopkins University · USSaint Louis University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Cardiovascular Epidemiology Training GrantT32HL007055 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Wayne D. Rosamond · 1986 to 2026
$10.0M
Long-Term Health Outcomes After Live Kidney Donation in African AmericansR01DK096008 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SEGEV, DORRY L. · 2013 to 2017
$3.8M
Patient Oriented Research in Kidney Disease and Transplant SurgeryK24DK101828 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SEGEV, DORRY L. · 2014 to 2018
$922k
Determinants of chronic kidney disease in African-American live kidney donorsK01DK101677 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MASSIE, ALLAN B · 2015 to 2019
$789k
Technological Innovations for Live Kidney Donor Follow-up Care ManagementK01DK114388 · NIDDK · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI LEVAN, MACEY LEIGH · 2017 to 2021
$720k
AHRQ HHS K01 HS024600NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007055NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK101677NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK114388NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK101828NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK096008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up.

methodsWe developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up.

resultsOf the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively.

conclusionsOverall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

Indexed as

follow-upkidney transplantationliving kidney donormobile phone, mHealth

Identifiers

PMID30305260
PMCPMC6231841
OpenAlexW2816553646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.