Alvin G. Thomas, Sarah Hussain, Samantha B. Klitenic, Carolyn N. Sidoti, Madeleine M. Waldram, Amy Chang, Jennifer D. Motter, Kelly Terlizzi, Allan B. Massie, Mary Schofield, Karol Barstow, Adam Bingaman, Dorry L. Segev, Macey L. Levan
{"title":"Effectiveness of a Mobile Health System on Compliance With 2-Year Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up in the United States","authors":"Alvin G. Thomas, Sarah Hussain, Samantha B. Klitenic, Carolyn N. Sidoti, Madeleine M. Waldram, Amy Chang, Jennifer D. Motter, Kelly Terlizzi, Allan B. Massie, Mary Schofield, Karol Barstow, Adam Bingaman, Dorry L. Segev, Macey L. Levan","doi":"10.1111/ctr.70139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires 2 years of follow-up for living kidney donors (LKDs); however, many transplant hospitals struggle to meet this requirement. We developed and tested a mobile health (mHealth) system for LKD follow-up in a pilot randomized-controlled trial (RCT).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>LKDs were randomly assigned to either the intervention (mHealth + standard of care) or control arm (standard of care). We assessed OPTN policy-defined completeness and timeliness of 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. Four hundred LKDs were enrolled in the study (June 2018 to February 2021).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of the intervention arm participants completed composite visits (97.5% vs. 91.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.01). Both arms had similar compliance rates at 1- and 2-year follow-up (92.0% vs. 89.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.49, and 66.5% vs. 65.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.83). Intervention arm participants completed 6-month follow-up 11 days earlier than their counterparts (<i>p</i> = 0.009).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>mHealth technologies improved 6-month follow-up, but did not impact 1- and 2-year LKD follow-up in this single-center RCT. Other strategies, such as providing services beyond data collection, may be necessary to improve donor engagement and support LDK's long-term follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10467,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Transplantation","volume":"39 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.70139","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires 2 years of follow-up for living kidney donors (LKDs); however, many transplant hospitals struggle to meet this requirement. We developed and tested a mobile health (mHealth) system for LKD follow-up in a pilot randomized-controlled trial (RCT).
Methods
LKDs were randomly assigned to either the intervention (mHealth + standard of care) or control arm (standard of care). We assessed OPTN policy-defined completeness and timeliness of 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. Four hundred LKDs were enrolled in the study (June 2018 to February 2021).
Results
At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of the intervention arm participants completed composite visits (97.5% vs. 91.5%, p = 0.01). Both arms had similar compliance rates at 1- and 2-year follow-up (92.0% vs. 89.5%, p = 0.49, and 66.5% vs. 65.0%, p = 0.83). Intervention arm participants completed 6-month follow-up 11 days earlier than their counterparts (p = 0.009).
Conclusion
mHealth technologies improved 6-month follow-up, but did not impact 1- and 2-year LKD follow-up in this single-center RCT. Other strategies, such as providing services beyond data collection, may be necessary to improve donor engagement and support LDK's long-term follow-up.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research aims to serve as a channel of rapid communication for all those involved in the care of patients who require, or have had, organ or tissue transplants, including: kidney, intestine, liver, pancreas, islets, heart, heart valves, lung, bone marrow, cornea, skin, bone, and cartilage, viable or stored.
Published monthly, Clinical Transplantation’s scope is focused on the complete spectrum of present transplant therapies, as well as also those that are experimental or may become possible in future. Topics include:
Immunology and immunosuppression;
Patient preparation;
Social, ethical, and psychological issues;
Complications, short- and long-term results;
Artificial organs;
Donation and preservation of organ and tissue;
Translational studies;
Advances in tissue typing;
Updates on transplant pathology;.
Clinical and translational studies are particularly welcome, as well as focused reviews. Full-length papers and short communications are invited. Clinical reviews are encouraged, as well as seminal papers in basic science which might lead to immediate clinical application. Prominence is regularly given to the results of cooperative surveys conducted by the organ and tissue transplant registries.
Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research is essential reading for clinicians and researchers in the diverse field of transplantation: surgeons; clinical immunologists; cryobiologists; hematologists; gastroenterologists; hepatologists; pulmonologists; nephrologists; cardiologists; and endocrinologists. It will also be of interest to sociologists, psychologists, research workers, and to all health professionals whose combined efforts will improve the prognosis of transplant recipients.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
