Usability assessment of an interactive health technology for kidney living donors: protocol for a prospective cross-sectional survey

Fernanda Ortiz, Guido Giunti, Fernanda Ortiz, Guido Giunti

Abstract

Introduction: Several web portals for kidney patients are available, but assessments of their performance are scarce. A crucial aspect of living donation is to provide standardised information about the risks of the procedure. This is of particular interest among candidates for kidney living donation. In 2019, the Digital Care Path for Living Kidney Donor Candidates was launched in Finland as part of the Health Village portal, containing information about the donation process and facilitating communication between clinicians, transplant coordinators and patients. The performance of this eHealth service has not yet been studied. The present study will investigate living donor candidates' experience with the Health Village and Digital Care Path for Living Kidney Donor Candidates. Participants' general attitudes towards the use of eHealth services will also be explored as a secondary objective.

Methods and analysis: A prospective cross-sectional survey study will take place. Participants will be kidney donor candidates who have used the digital care path since its implementation in January 2019 up to 1 March 2021 (N=122). The surveys will include demographic data, electronic device ownership and digital health literacy. Platform's ease of use will be assessed with the System Usability Scale. Open-ended questions will be used to gather suggestions.

Ethics and dissemination: The research protocol has been approved by the Helsinki University Hospital ethical committee (HUS/501/2021) to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and Declaration of Istanbul. Recruitment will start during the first semester of 2021. Initial results are expected during the second semester of 2021.

Trial registration number: NCT04791670; Pre-results.

Keywords: health informatics; kidney & urinary tract disorders; nephrology; renal transplantation; telemedicine; transplant medicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Naghavi M, Abajobir AA, Abbafati C. Global, regional, and national age-sex specifc mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980-2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet 2017. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32152-9
    1. Naylor KL, Kim SJ, McArthur E, et al. . Mortality in incident maintenance dialysis patients versus incident solid organ cancer patients: a population-based cohort. Am J Kidney Dis 2019;73:765–76. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.12.011
    1. ERA-EDTA Registry . Number of people in need of renal replacement therapy is rising, 2017.
    1. Ortiz F, Harjutsalo V, Helanterä I, et al. . Long-Term mortality after kidney transplantation in a nationwide cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes in Finland. Diabetes Care 2019;42:55–61. 10.2337/dc18-1029
    1. Vanholder R, Stel VS, Jager KJ, et al. . How to increase kidney transplant activity throughout Europe-an advocacy review by the European kidney health alliance. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2019;34:1254–61. 10.1093/ndt/gfy390
    1. Barnieh L, Collister D, Manns B, et al. . A scoping review for strategies to increase living kidney donation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;12:1518–27. 10.2215/CJN.01470217
    1. Scandiatransplant . Annual report 2019, 2020.
    1. Helsinki University Hospital . Digital health village. Available:
    1. Saranto K, Kivekäs E, Kuosmanen P, et al. . Electronic Health Services in the Patients' Daily Activities - Willingness to Use Health Village Services. Stud Health Technol Inform 2018;247:586–90.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res 2006;8:e27–9. 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27
    1. Karnoe A, Kayser L. How is eHealth literacy measured and what do the measurements tell us? A systematic review. Knowl Manag E-Learning 2015.
    1. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 1989.
    1. Georgsson M, Staggers N. Quantifying usability: an evaluation of a diabetes mHealth system on effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction metrics with associated user characteristics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016;23:5–11. 10.1093/jamia/ocv099
    1. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics . Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review, 2009. Available:
    1. Helsinki University Hospital . Helsinki university hospital. Helsinki university hospital research policy and procedure. HUS website, 2015. Available:
    1. Helsinki: statistics Finland. official statistics of Finland (OSF): use of information and communications technology by individuals, 2018. Available:
    1. Vehko T, Ruotsalainen S. E-Health and e-Welfare of Finland, 2019.
    1. Cabacungan AN, Diamantidis CJ, St Clair Russell J, et al. . Development of a telehealth intervention to improve access to live donor kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 2019;51:665–75. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.12.032
    1. Tang J, James L, Howell M, et al. . eHealth interventions for solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Transplantation 2020;104:e224–35. 10.1097/TP.0000000000003294
    1. Kortram K, Spoon EQW, Ismail SY, et al. . Towards a standardised informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: the Prince (process of informed consent evaluation) project-study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010594. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010594

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa