Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A review of the use of information communication technology to aid decision-making for live kidney donors and recipients

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To understand the role that information communication technology (ICT) might play in addressing the informational and decision-making needs of live kidney donors and recipients, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies that describe the features of technological support used by living kidney donors and recipients and their perspectives on this technology. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and reviewed articles from 2000 through August 2014. Descriptive synthesis was used to analyse the findings and group the technologies into information, communication, decision-making and account management tools. The use of websites for information and social-networking sites for communication were the key technologies in current use to support donors and recipients. We note a lack of decision-making tools and specific support for the live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) decision process. We offer a set of recommendations, which combines the technologies and features identified in the review with additional features to address the identified gap. These recommendations can be used by health organisations and system developers to extend existing or design new ICT systems that can help live kidney donors and recipients by increasing their awareness about live kidney donation, improve psychosocial support, and assist in the difficult LDKT decision-making process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanellis J Justification for living donor kidney transplantation. Nephrology. 2010;15(s1):S72–S9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Horvat LD, Shariff SZ, Garg AX. Global trends in the rates of living kidney donation. Kidney Int. 2009;75(10):1088–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ismail SY, Luchtenburg AE, Zuidema WC, Boonstra C, Weimar W, Massey EK, et al. Multisystemic engagement and nephrology based educational intervention: a randomized controlled trial protocol on the KidneyTteam at home study. BMC Nephrol. 2012;13:62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Muzaale A, Massie A, Wainright J, McBride M, Wang M, Segev D. Long-term risk of ESRD attributable to live kidney donation: matching with healthy non-donors. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:204–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Segev DL, Muzaale AD, Caffo BS, Mehta SH, Singer AL, Taranto SE, et al. Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation. JAMA. 2010;303(10):959–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reisaeter A, Røislien J, Henriksen T, Irgens L, Hartmann A. Pregnancy and birth after kidney donation: the Norwegian experience. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(4):820–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mjøen G, Hallan S, Hartmann A, Foss A, Midtvedt K, Øyen O, et al. Long-term risks for kidney donors. Kidney Int. 2014;86(1):162–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boudville N Meta-analysis: risk for hypertension in living kidney donors. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(3):185–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramcharan T Long-term (20–37 years) follow-up of living kidney donors. Am J Transplant. 2002;2(10):959–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ibrahim HN, Ibrahim HN. Long-term consequences of kidney donation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):459–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Matas AJ. 2,500 living donor kidney transplants: a single-center experience. Ann Surg. 2001;234(2):149–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan HP, Marcos A, Shapiro R. Living donor transplantation: CRC press; 2013.

  13. Matas AJ, Bartlett ST, Leichtman AB, Delmonico FL. Morbidity and mortality after living kidney donation, 1999–2001: survey of United States transplant centers. Am J Transplant. 2003;3(7):830–4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ingelfinger JR. Risks and benefits to the living donor. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(5):447–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fournier C Very long-term follow-up of living kidney donors living kidney donors in the very long term. Transpl Int. 2012;25(4):385–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fehrman-Ekholm I, Fehrman-Ekholm I. Post-nephrectomy development of renal function in living kidney donors: a cross-sectional retrospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(7):2377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garg AX, Garg AX. Cardiovascular disease in kidney donors: matched cohort study. BMJ British medical journal (Clinical research ed). 2012;344(mar01 2):e1203-e.

  18. Segev DL, Segev DL. Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation. JAMA. 2010;303(10):959–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reule S Selection of controls in kidney donor outcome studies: an admirable effort. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(2):194–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tong A, Chapman JR, Wong G, Kanellis J, McCarthy G, Craig JC. The motivations and experiences of living kidney donors: a thematic synthesis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clemens KK. Psychosocial health of living kidney donors: a systematic review. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(12):2965–77.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Paun MV. Gift of life: the social and psychological impact of organ transplantation (book). Sociol Health Illn. 1979;1(2):248–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fellner CH. Twelve kidney donors. JAMA. 1968;206(12):2703–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fehrman-Ekholm I, Brink B, Ericsson C, Elinder CG, Duner F, Lundgren G. Kidney donors don’t regret: follow-up of 370 donors in Stockholm since 1964. Transplantation. 2000;69(10):2067–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanson CS, Chadban SJ, Chapman JR, Craig JC, Wong G, Ralph AF, et al. Patients' expectations and attitudes towards living kidney donation: a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies (prepublication copy). 2013.

  26. The Nielsen Company. The Australian Internet & Technology Report: Edition 12. 2010.

  27. Moody EM, Clemens KK, Storsley L, Waterman A, Parikh CR, Garg AX, et al. Improving on-line information for potential living kidney donors. Kidney Int. 2007;71(10):1062–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chang A, Anderson EE, Turner HT, Shoham D, Hou SH, Grams M. Identifying potential kidney donors using social networking web sites. Clin Transpl. 2013;27(3):E320–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanif F, Read JC, Clancy MJ. A snapshot of renal transplant patients using medical web browsing. Exp Clin Transplant. 2012;10(3):219–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Moody EM, Clemens KK, Storsley L, Waterman A, Parikh CR, Garg AX. Improving on-line information for potential living kidney donors. Kidney Int. 2007;71(10):1062–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Agerskov H, Bistrup C, Ludvigsen MS, Pedersen BD. Living kidney donation: considerations and decision-making. J Ren Care. 2014;40(2):88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Taylor LA, Bahreman N, Hayat MJ, Hoey F, Rajasekaran G, Segev DL. Living kidney donors and their family caregivers: developing an evidence-based educational and social support website. Prog Transplant. 2012;22(2):119–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Costello KL, Murillo AP. “I want your kidney!” information seeking, sharing, and disclosure when soliciting a kidney donor online. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):423–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Williams ME. Internet organ solicitation, explained. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2006;13(1):70–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Moore DR, Feurer ID, Zavala EY, Shaffer D, Karp S, Hoy H, et al. A web-based application for initial screening of living kidney donors: development, implementation and evaluation. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(2):450–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sanner MA. The donation process of living kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(8):1707–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Council NHaMR. Organ and tissue donation by living donors: guidelines for ethical practice for health professionals. Working to Build a Healthy Australia. 2007.

  38. Devitt J, Cass A, Cunningham J, Preece C, Anderson K, Snelling P. Study protocol–improving access to kidney transplants (IMPAKT): a detailed account of a qualitative study investigating barriers to transplant for Australian indigenous people with end-stage kidney disease. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Purnell TS, Hall YN, Boulware L. Understanding and overcoming barriers to living kidney donation among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Adv Chronic kidney Dis. 2012;19(4):244–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Taylor LA, McMullen P. Living kidney organ donation: experiences of spousal support of donors. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(2):232–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kamal L, Serur D. Evaluation of potential living kidney donors. 2012.

  42. Afaneh C, Hartono C. Evaluation of kidney transplant candidates: an update in 2012. 2012.

  43. Ismail SY, Luchtenburg AE, Claassens L, Massey EK, Busschbach JJ, Weimar W. Living kidney donation among ethnic minorities: a Dutch qualitative study on attitudes, communication and knowledge of kidney patients. Transpl Int. 2011;24:128–9.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stothers L, Gourlay WA, Liu L. Attitudes and predictive factors for live kidney donation: a comparison of live kidney donors versus nondonors. Kidney Int. 2005;67(3):1105–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sheu J African American and non-African American patients' and families' decision making about renal replacement therapies. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(7):997–1006.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Schaeffner ES, Mehta J, Winkelmayer WC. Educational level as a determinant of access to and outcomes after kidney transplantation in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51(5):811–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Grubbs V, Gregorich SE, Perez-Stable EJ. Hsu C-y. Health literacy and access to kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(1):195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hanif F, Abayasekara K, Willcocks L, Jolly EC, Jamieson NV, Praseedom RK, et al. The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the world wide web. Clin Transpl. 2007;21(3):371–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith SW, Nazione S, LaPlante C, Clark-Hitt R, Park HS, Sung R, et al. Living kidney donor decision making and communication. J Health Commun. 2011;16(8):870–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kranenburg LW, Zuidema WC, Weimar W, Hilhorst MT, IJzermans JN, Passchier J, et al. Psychological barriers for living kidney donation: how to inform the potential donors? Transplantation. 2007;84(8):965–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yi M Decision-making process for living kidney donors. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003;35(1):61–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Clarke A, Mitchell A, Abraham C. Understanding donation experiences of unspecified (altruistic) kidney donors. Br J Health Psychol. 2014;19(2):393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ummel D, Achille M, Mekkelholt J. Donors and recipients of living kidney donation: a qualitative metasummary of their experiences. J Transplant. 2011;2011.

  54. Rodrigue JR, Mandelbrot DA, Pavlakis M. A psychological intervention to improve quality of life and reduce psychological distress in adults awaiting kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(2):709–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Kaplan B, Howard RJ. A randomized trial of a home-based educational approach to increase live donor kidney transplantation: effects in blacks and whites. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51(4):663–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Boulware L, Hill-Briggs F, Kraus ES, Melancon JK, Falcone B, Ephraim PL, et al. Effectiveness of educational and social worker interventions to activate patients' discussion and pursuit of preemptive living donor kidney transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;61(3):476–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rodrigue JR, Pavlakis M, Egbuna O, Paek M, Waterman AD, Mandelbrot DA. The “house calls” trial: a randomized controlled trial to reduce racial disparities in live donor kidney transplantation: rationale and design. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(4):811–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bickmore TW. Relational agents: effecting change through human-computer relationships: Massachusetts institute of technology; 2003.

  59. Akoh JA, Caton P. A transplant website in today’s world. Open Transplantation Journal. 2008;2:54–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bramstedt KA, Dave S. The silence of good Samaritan kidney donation in Australia: a survey of hospital websites. Clin Transpl. 2013;27(3):E244–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the contributions of Camille Hanson and Allison Tong The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia in the formation of the study and comments on the draft manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Macquarie University, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Deborah Richards & Nadasa Chan

  2. Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Patrina H. Y. Caldwell

  3. The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia

    Patrina H. Y. Caldwell

Authors
  1. Deborah Richards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadasa Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrina H. Y. Caldwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Richards.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richards, D., Chan, N. & Caldwell, P.H.Y. A review of the use of information communication technology to aid decision-making for live kidney donors and recipients. Health Technol. 5, 167–178 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-015-0118-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-015-0118-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation