Ann K Eno1, Jessica M Ruck1, Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen1, Madeleine M Waldram1, Alvin G Thomas1,2, Tanjala S Purnell1,3,4,5, Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang1, Allan B Massie1,3, Fawaz Al Almmary6, Lisa M Cooper3,4,5,7, Dorry L Segev1,3,8, Michael A Levan9, Macey L Henderson1,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Health Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. Department of Acute and Chronic Care, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. 9. United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: United States transplant centers are required to report follow-up data for living kidney donors for 2 years post-donation. However, living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up is often incomplete. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could ease data collection burden but have not yet been explored in this context. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 21 transplant providers and thought leaders about challenges in LKD follow-up, and the potential role of mHealth in overcoming these challenges. RESULTS: Participants reported challenges conveying the importance of follow-up to LKDs, limited data from international/out-of-town LKDs, and inadequate staffing. They believed the 2-year requirement was insufficient, but expressed difficulty engaging LKDs for even this short time and inadequate resources for longer-term follow-up. Participants believed an mHealth system for post-donation follow-up could benefit LKDs (by simplifying communication/tasks and improving donor engagement) and transplant centers (by streamlining communication and decreasing workforce burden). Concerns included cost, learning curves, security/privacy, patient language/socioeconomic barriers, and older donor comfort with mHealth technology. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant providers felt that mHealth technology could improve LKD follow-up and help centers meet reporting thresholds. However, designing a secure, easy to use, and cost-effective system remains challenging.
BACKGROUND: United States transplant centers are required to report follow-up data for living kidney donors for 2 years post-donation. However, living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up is often incomplete. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could ease data collection burden but have not yet been explored in this context. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 21 transplant providers and thought leaders about challenges in LKD follow-up, and the potential role of mHealth in overcoming these challenges. RESULTS:Participants reported challenges conveying the importance of follow-up to LKDs, limited data from international/out-of-town LKDs, and inadequate staffing. They believed the 2-year requirement was insufficient, but expressed difficulty engaging LKDs for even this short time and inadequate resources for longer-term follow-up. Participants believed an mHealth system for post-donation follow-up could benefit LKDs (by simplifying communication/tasks and improving donor engagement) and transplant centers (by streamlining communication and decreasing workforce burden). Concerns included cost, learning curves, security/privacy, patient language/socioeconomic barriers, and older donor comfort with mHealth technology. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant providers felt that mHealth technology could improve LKD follow-up and help centers meet reporting thresholds. However, designing a secure, easy to use, and cost-effective system remains challenging.
Authors: Didier A Mandelbrot; Martha Pavlakis; Seth J Karp; Scott R Johnson; Douglass W Hanto; James R Rodrigue Journal: Transplantation Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 4.939
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
Authors: Dorry L Segev; Abimereki D Muzaale; Brian S Caffo; Shruti H Mehta; Andrew L Singer; Sarah E Taranto; Maureen A McBride; Robert A Montgomery Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John W McGillicuddy; Mathew J Gregoski; Anna K Weiland; Rebecca A Rock; Brenda M Brunner-Jackson; Sachin K Patel; Beje S Thomas; David J Taber; Kenneth D Chavin; Prabhakar K Baliga; Frank A Treiber Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2013-09-04
Authors: John William McGillicuddy; Ana Katherine Weiland; Ronja Maximiliane Frenzel; Martina Mueller; Brenda Marie Brunner-Jackson; David James Taber; Prabhakar Kalyanpur Baliga; Frank Anton Treiber Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 5.428