Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

KidneyTIME digital intervention improves knowledge and listing behaviors but not donor inquiries in kidney transplant candidatesDigital Tools Improve Knowledge for Kidney Transplant Candidates

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that KidneyTIME improved knowledge and listing behaviors but did not increase donor inquiries; engagement may be key.

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 422 adult kidney transplant candidates from a safety-net hospital transplant program, who were in referral, evaluation, or listed phases. Participants were randomized to KidneyTIME, a patient-led digital intervention providing animated video education on live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and outreach enablement via video sharing, or an active control. The primary outcome was at least one live donor inquiry within 12 months. Secondary outcomes included LDKT knowledge, attitudes, behaviors toward listing, donor outreach, video sharing, and intervention acceptability.

Results showed no difference between groups for the primary outcome of live donor inquiries. However, the KidneyTIME group had significantly higher LDKT knowledge (p = 0.002), new listing behaviors (incidence rate ratio 1.62, p = 0.005), and extent of video sharing (p = 0.016). In an as-treated analysis, viewers of at least one optional video had a higher cumulative donor inquiry probability (22.9%) versus non-viewers (9.8%, p = 0.029). Acceptability scores were high.

Safety and adverse events were not reported. Limitations include the preliminary nature of dose-effect findings, suggesting the need to encourage greater engagement with the intervention. The study is an RCT, but the primary outcome did not reach statistical significance, so clinicians should interpret the positive secondary outcomes cautiously.

Researchers studied 422 adult kidney transplant candidates to see if a patient-led digital tool called KidneyTIME could help them find live donors. The study compared patients who used the interactive video platform against those in an active control group.

While the program did not lead to more donor inquiries for the entire group, it significantly improved knowledge and behaviors regarding living donor transplants. Specifically, participants using the tool showed higher rates of sharing information and taking steps toward listing themselves for a transplant.

One notable finding was that patients who watched at least one optional video were much more likely to make a donor inquiry compared to those who did not watch any. Because this was an early study, it suggests that while the tool is well-received by patients, more work is needed to figure out how to best encourage people to engage with the content.

What this means for you:
The digital tool improved patient knowledge and engagement, but didn't increase overall donor inquiries.

Common questions

What did the study find about patient knowledge?

Patients who used the KidneyTIME digital intervention showed significantly higher levels of knowledge regarding living donor transplants compared to the control group. This suggests that the animated videos and outreach tools were effective at educating patients during the evaluation phase.

Did the program help people find more donors?

The study found no difference in the total number of live donor inquiries between the two groups. However, patients who watched at least one optional video were significantly more likely to make a donor inquiry than those who did not watch any.

Is this program safe for transplant candidates?

The study reported high acceptability scores for the intervention, meaning patients found it easy and acceptable to use. No serious adverse events or safety concerns were reported during the trial period.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 212
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Digital behavioral interventions are promising to support patients' pursuit of live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). This study examined the effectiveness of a patient-led digital intervention (KidneyTIME) versus active control on facilitating LDKT. METHODS: An individually randomized (1:1) parallel-group trial was conducted at a safety-net hospital transplant program with adult kidney transplant candidates in referral, evaluation, or listed phases who were English-speaking and had email or text access. KidneyTIME participants received animated video LDKT education and outreach enablement via video sharing. The primary outcome was ≥1 live donor inquiry within 12 months in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included LDKT knowledge, attitudes, behaviors toward listing and donor outreach, extent of video sharing, and intervention acceptability assessed by survey at 4 timepoints post-exposure. RESULTS: Between 4/22 and 7/23, 422 candidates (mean age 54 years; 57% male, 45% income < $30,000) were randomized to KidneyTIME (n = 212) or active control (n = 210). Between-group differences in donor outreach behaviors and receipt of a donor inquiry were not detected. KidneyTIME participants had higher LDKT knowledge (p = 0.002), new listing behaviors (IRR:1.62, p = 0.005), and extent of video sharing (p = 0.016). In planned as-treated analysis, intervention participants who viewed at least one optional video had significantly higher cumulative donor inquiry probability than those who did not (viewer 22.9%; non-viewer 9.8%, p = 0.029). Intervention acceptability scores were high. CONCLUSION: A digital intervention self-administered by patients did not increase donor inquiries. Preliminary dose effect findings suggest the need to consider how to encourage people to engage more with the intervention.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.