Computerized adaptive technology for the assessment of HRQOL of PD and CKD patients

eHealth Solutions for Symptom Assessment and Monitoring in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

AIMS

This systematic review examined eHealth solutions used to assess and monitor symptoms among adults with CKD.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD4202452973).

METHODS

Seven databases were searched for English language studies that reported eHealth solutions for symptom assessment and monitoring in CKD between January 2000 and May 2024. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a co-design evaluation tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies involving 4345 participants with CKD were included. Most of the included studies were non-randomised controlled trials (n = 16) and non-experimental studies (n = 13); only a few studies (n = 9) were randomised controlled trials. Current eHealth solutions varied in technologies and functions but were primarily focused on self-monitoring (n = 22), data recording (n = 14), education (n = 13), providing information (n = 10) and reminders/alerts (n = 10). There was limited evidence from few intervention studies involving eHealth solutions showing improvements in CKD symptoms and/or health-related quality of life. Among the 14 studies that assessed user satisfaction, satisfaction was high, but challenges and barriers to implementing these solutions were reported.

CONCLUSION

eHealth solutions have the potential to facilitate symptom assessment and monitoring for adults with CKD, but further high-quality experimental studies are required to provide better evidence in practice.

SUMMARY

eHealth symptom assessment and monitoring are increasing in practice. While some adults are willing and able to use eHealth solutions, barriers remain due to limited digital health literacy. As few randomised controlled trials exist, further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits of reducing chronic kidney disease symptom burden.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

An Evidence-Based Theory About PRO Use in Kidney Care: A Realist Synthesis

BACKGROUND

There is international interest on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in nephrology.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to develop a kidney-specific program theory about use of PROs in nephrology that may enhance person-centered care, both at individual and aggregated levels of care, and to test and refine this theory through a systematic review of the empirical literature. Together, these objectives articulate what works or does not work, for whom, and why.

METHODS

Realist synthesis methodology guided the electronic database and gray literature searches (in January 2017 and October 2018), screening, and extraction conducted independently by three reviewers. Sources included all nephrology patients and/or practitioners. Through a process of extraction and synthesis, each included source was examined to assess how contexts may trigger mechanisms to influence specific outcomes.

RESULTS

After screening 19,961 references, 84 theoretical and 34 empirical sources were used. PROs are proposed to be useful for providing nephrology care through three types of use. The first type is use of individual-level PRO data at point of care, receiving the majority of theoretical and empirical explorations. Clinician use to support person-centered care, and patient use to support patient engagement, are purported to improve satisfaction, health, and quality of life. Contextual factors specific to the kidney care setting that may influence the use of PRO data include the complexity of kidney disease symptom burden, symptoms that may be stigmatized, comorbidities, and time or administrative constraints in dialysis settings. Electronic collection of PROs may facilitate PRO use given these contexts. The second type is use of aggregated PRO data at point of care, including public reporting of PROs to inform decisions at point of care and improve quality of care, and use of PROs for treatment decisions. The third type is use of aggregated PRO data by organizations, including publicly available PRO data to compare centers. In single-payer systems, regular collection of PROs by dialysis centers can be achieved through economic incentives. Both the second and third types of PRO use include pressures that may trigger quality improvement processes.

CONCLUSION

The current state of the evidence is primarily theoretical. There is pressing need for empirical research to improve the evidence-base of PRO use at individual and aggregated levels of nephrology care.