Literature DB >> 29281129

Electronic messaging and communication with living kidney donors.

Jessica M Ruck1, Sheng Zhou1, Alvin G Thomas1, Shannon L Cramm1, Allan B Massie1,2, John R Montgomery1, Jonathan C Berger1, Macey L Henderson1, Dorry L Segev1,2.   

Abstract

New regulations require living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up for 2 years, but donor retention remains poor. Electronic communication (eg, text messaging and e-mail) might improve donor retention. To explore the possible impact of electronic communication, we recruited LKDs to participate in an exploratory study of communication via telephone, e-mail, or text messaging postdonation; communication through this study was purely optional and did not replace standard follow-up. Of 69 LKDs recruited, 3% requested telephone call, 52% e-mail, and 45% text messaging. Telephone response rate was 0%; these LKDs were subsequently excluded from analysis. Overall response rates with e-mail or text messaging at 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 94%, 87%, 81%, 72%, and 72%. Lower response rates were seen in African Americans, even after adjusting for age, sex, and contact method (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse 2.07 5.8116.36 , P = .001). Text messaging had higher response rates than e-mail (IRR nonresponse 0.11 0.280.71 , P = .007). Rates of nonresponse were similar by sex (IRR 0.68, P = .4) and age (IRR 1.00, P > .9). In summary, LKDs strongly preferred electronic messaging over telephone and were highly responsive 2 years postdonation, even in this nonrequired, nonincentivized exploratory research study. These electronic communication tools can be automated and may improve regulatory compliance and postdonation care.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; electronic messaging; follow-up; living kidney donor

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29281129      PMCID: PMC6116553          DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13184

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Transplant        ISSN: 0902-0063            Impact factor:   2.863


  10 in total

1.  Critical Factors Associated With Missing Follow-Up Data for Living Kidney Donors in the United States.

Authors:  J D Schold; L D Buccini; J R Rodrigue; D Mandelbrot; D A Goldfarb; S M Flechner; L K Kayler; E D Poggio
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  Effective communication of standard errors and confidence intervals.

Authors:  Thomas A Louis; Scott L Zeger
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Potential Limitations of E-mail and Text Messaging in Improving Adherence in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension.

Authors:  Osamah J Saeedi; Christine Luzuriaga; Nancy Ellish; Alan Robin
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2015 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Living-donor follow-up attitudes and practices in U.S. kidney and liver donor programs.

Authors:  Amy D Waterman; Mary Amanda Dew; Connie L Davis; Melanie McCabe; Jennifer L Wainright; Cynthia L Forland; Lee Bolton; Matthew Cooper
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 5.  Big data in organ transplantation: registries and administrative claims.

Authors:  A B Massie; L M Kucirka; L M Kuricka; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 6.  Health education via mobile text messaging for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mohsen Saffari; Ghader Ghanizadeh; Harold G Koenig
Journal:  Prim Care Diabetes       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.459

7.  The National Landscape of Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up in the United States.

Authors:  M L Henderson; A G Thomas; A Shaffer; A B Massie; X Luo; C M Holscher; T S Purnell; K L Lentine; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 8.086

8.  The evolution and direction of OPTN oversight of live organ donation and transplantation in the United States.

Authors:  R S Brown; R Higgins; T L Pruett
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 8.086

9.  A two-way text-messaging system answering health questions for low-income pregnant women.

Authors:  Hayeon Song; Amy May; Vishnuvardhan Vaidhyanathan; Emily M Cramer; Rami W Owais; Susan McRoy
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-05-24

10.  Risk of end-stage renal disease following live kidney donation.

Authors:  Abimereki D Muzaale; Allan B Massie; Mei-Cheng Wang; Robert A Montgomery; Maureen A McBride; Jennifer L Wainright; Dorry L Segev
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 56.272

  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Direct Delivery of Kidney Transplant Education to Black and Low-Income Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Amy D Waterman; John Devin Peipert; Anna-Michelle McSorley; Christina J Goalby; Jennifer L Beaumont; Leanne Peace
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 8.860

2.  Perspectives on implementing mobile health technology for living kidney donor follow-up: In-depth interviews with transplant providers.

Authors:  Ann K Eno; Jessica M Ruck; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Madeleine M Waldram; Alvin G Thomas; Tanjala S Purnell; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Allan B Massie; Fawaz Al Almmary; Lisa M Cooper; Dorry L Segev; Michael A Levan; Macey L Henderson
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.863

3.  The Impact of the mKidney mHealth System on Live Donor Follow-Up Compliance: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Macey L Henderson; Alvin G Thomas; Ann K Eno; Madeleine M Waldram; Jaclyn Bannon; Allan B Massie; Michael A Levan; Dorry L Segev; Adam W Bingaman
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2019-01-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.