ArticleBMC nephrology2021
Renal recipients' knowledge and self-efficacy during first year after implementing an evidence based educational intervention as routine care at the transplantation clinic.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with the willingness to become a kidney transplant recipient ─ the results from a national cross sectional study.BMC nephrology · 2025Observational
- Defining Self-Management for Solid Organ Transplantation Recipients: A Mixed Method Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Validation of the Chinese version of the kidney transplant understanding tool in Chinese patients.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Kidney transplant-related knowledge and influencing factors in Chinese kidney transplant candidates and recipients: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Prevalence and Modifiable Factors for Holistic Non-Adherence in Renal Transplant Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing an implementation plan based on dynamic dialogue between researchers and clinicians, this study implemented an evidence-based patient education program (tested in an RCT) into routine care at a clinical transplant center. The aim of this study was to investigate renal recipients' knowledge and self-efficacy during first year the after the intervention was provided in an everyday life setting.
methodsThe study has a longitudinal design. The sample consisted of 196 renal recipients. Measurement points were 5 days (baseline), 2 months (T1), 6 months (T2), and one-year post transplantation (T3). Outcome measures were post-transplant knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-perceived general health.
resultsNo statistically significant changes were found from baseline to T1, T2, and T3. Participants' levels of knowledge and self-efficacy were high prior to the education program and did not change throughout the first year post transplantation.
conclusionRenal recipients self-efficacy and insight in post-transplant aspects seem to be more robust when admitted to the hospital for transplantation compared to baseline observations in the RCT study. This may explain why the implemented educational intervention did not lead to the same positive increase in outcome measures as in the RCT. This study supports that replicating clinical interventions in real-life settings may provide different results compared to results from RCT's. In order to gain a complete picture of the impacts of an implemented intervention, it is vital also to evaluate results after implementing findings from RCT-studies into everyday practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.