Perspectives of Kidney Transplant Recipients on eHealth: Semistructured Interviews

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Background.

The acceptability and impact of eHealth on patient outcomes may be limited if their concerns and priorities are not addressed. This study aimed to describe the perspectives and experiences of eHealth among kidney transplant recipients.

Methods.

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with 30 adult kidney transplant recipients from New South Wales, Australia (urban and regional), in ambulatory clinics. We used purposive sampling to obtain a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. Ethics was approved by the Western Sydney Local Health District (6054-2019/ETH08718).

Findings.

Six themes were identified: seeking access to quality care (prioritizing and trusting clinician advice, better safety and timeliness, enabled by user-friendly content); supporting self-management (responsive to individualized informational need, empowerment through practical knowledge, encouraging connectedness); assessing reliability and trustworthiness (discerning information integrity, applying to own context, apprehensive about privacy and confidentiality); enhancing health system capabilities (synergy with routine consultations, essential to coordination, achieving goals by real-time monitoring); technology burden and limitation (uncertainty with navigation and comprehension, challenged by technical difficulties, requiring additional preparation, confrontation and distress); and lacking applicable value (diminished assurance of medical services, existing practice and procedures, hampered by low expectations and disinterest).

Conclusion.

Recipients felt eHealth could support healthcare delivery and self-management activities. However, they encountered challenges in navigating technology and were concerned about privacy, confidentiality, and misinformation. eHealth that is accessible, individualized, and secure may improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

0 comments Cited 10817 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View

Davis, Venkatesh, Morris (2003)

0 comments Cited 4012 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Venkatesh, Thong, Xu (2012)

0 comments Cited 1942 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Transplant Direct

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Transplant Direct

Journal ID (publisher-id): TXD

Title: Transplantation Direct

Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )

ISSN (Electronic): 2373-8731

Publication date (Electronic): 10 November 2022

Publication date Collection: December 2022

Volume: 8

Issue: 12

Electronic Location Identifier: e1404

Affiliations

[1 ] Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

[2 ] Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia.

[3 ] Renal Research, Gosford, NSW, Australia.

[4 ] Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia.

Author notes

Correspondence: James Tang, FRACP, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia. ( james.tang@ 123456health.nsw.gov.au ).

Article

Accession ID: 00006

DOI: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001404

PMC ID: 9649275

PubMed ID: 36382131

SO-VID: cbd6d98f-bee0-44ca-9738-aeb1cf21ea72

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

History

Date received : 3 March 2022

Date revision received : 17 September 2022

Date accepted : 20 September 2022

Custom metadata

OPEN-ACCESS TRUE

SDC T

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.