Abstract
Purpose: There are around 60,000 patients going through dialysis in our country. Although there are numerous successful transplant teams, the number of transplantations achieved has not reached the desired level. For this reason, kidney transplantation centers which keep increasing in number, have started different activities to inform these patients about the kidney transplantation. In our study, the patients having applied to three of the transplant centers in Istanbul were observed on how efficacious the activities were on the subjects.
Patients and method: Patients having applied to the transplant centers in A (n: 1314), B (n: 27) and C (n: 229) hospitals, in the period between January 2, 2008 and December 31, 2010 were investigated by the organ transplant coordinators about how they were informed about these centers. In this study, it was observed that the patients got to know about the centers through dialysis centers stuffs, nephrologists, other patients, media and internet, etc. sources. We investigated on the differences these sources created in the different hospitals. In addition to these, on July 1, 2010; a website was established by A hospital with the same purpose. Also, the effect of this site in referring patients to the clinic was investigated.
Results: We found out that patients were informed about organ transplantation centers from other patients, who have had organ transplantation (40.6%); dialysis centers (32.9%), media (9.6%), nephrologists (8.0%), internet (5.2%) and others (3.6%) (p=0.011). In A hospital, the mean average application number which was 34.6 patients/month went up to 44.5 patients/month after the establishment of the website. The website was found to be the only reason for the increase.
Conclusion: Besides the mentioned factors; the internet which lately plays a great role in our daily life, also becomes an important guide for information for patients who want to have organ transplantation.
Keywords:
Kidney transplantation, dialysis patients, internet websites
References
1Türk Nefroloji Derneği. http://www.tsn. org.tr/folders/file/tsn_registry_2009.pdf
2McDonald SP, Russ GR. Survival of recipients of cadaveric kidney transplants compared with those receiving dialysis treatment in Australia and New Zealand 1991–2001. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17:2212–2219. doi:10.1093/ndt/17.12.2212
3Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1725–1730. doi:10.1056/NEJM199912023412303
4Johnson DW, Hergiz K, Purdie D, et al. A comparison of the effects of dialysis and renal transplantation on the survival of older uremic patients. Transplantation 2000; 69:794–799.
5Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Meier-Kriesche H, et al. Survival in recipients of marginal cadaveric donor kidneys compared with other recipients and wait-listed transplant candidates. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12:589–597. doi:10.1046/j.1523- 1755.2001.0590041539.x
6Lowell JA, Brennan DC, Shenoy S, et al. Living-unrelated renal transplantation provides comparable results to living-related renal transplantation: a 12-year single-center experience. Surgery 1996; 5:538–543. doi:10.1016/ S0039-6060(96)80264-9
7USRDS data. www.usrds.org/2010/pdf/ v2_07.pdf
8Gürkan A, Kaçar S, Varılsüha C, et al. Kadavra vericili transplantasyonlardaki çabalarımız. Ulusal Cerrahi Dergisi 2002; 18:160–166.
9Sanchez-Fructuoso AI, Prats D, Torrente J, et al. Renal transplantation from nonheart beating donors: A promising alternative to enlarge donor pool. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:350–358.
10Kaçar S, Gürkan A, Varılsüha C, et al. Marginal donors in kidney transplantation. Ann Transpl 2004; 9:5–7. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.10.024
11Kacar S, Gurkan A, Karaca C, et al. Open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in live related renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2004; 36:2620–2622. doi:10.1097/00007890-200407271-01772
12Ratner LE, Hiller J, Sroka M, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy removes disincentives to live donation. Transplant Proc 1997; 29:3402–3403. doi:10.1016/S0041-1345(97)00955-X
13Süleymanlar G, Utaş C, Arinsoy T, et al. A population-based survey of Chronic Renal Disease In Turkey–the CREDIT study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26:1862–1871.
14Akın MK. Organ Nakli İstatistikleri. VIII. Türkiye Organ Nakli Kuruluşları Koordinasyon Derneği Kongresi. 12–16 Ekim 2011 Antalya
15Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1725–1730. doi:10.1056/ NEJM199912023412303
16Baker L, Wagner TH, Singer S, et al. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. JAMA 2003; 289:2400–2406. doi:10.1001/jama.289.18.2400
17Eysenbach G, Kohler C. What is the prevalence of health-related searches on the World Wide Web? Qualitative and quantitative analysis of search engine queries on the internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003, 225–229.
18Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:2618–2624. doi:10.1001/ archinte.165.22.2618
19Kummervold PE, Chronaki CE, Lausen B, et al. eHealth trends in Europe 2005– 2007: a population-based survey. J Med Internet Res 2008; 10:42. doi:10.2196/ jmir.1023
20Ybarra ML, Suman M: Help seeking behavior and the Internet: a national survey. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75:29–41. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.029
21Bozic KJ, Smith AR, Hariri S, et al. The 2007 ABJS Marshall Urist Award: The impact of direct-to-consumer advertising in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 458:202–219. doi:10.1097/ BLO.0b013e31804fdd02
22Faber M, Bosch M, Wollersheim H, et al. Public reporting in health care: how do consumers use quality-of-care information? A systematic review. Med Care 2009; 47:1–8. doi:10.1097/ MLR.0b013e3181808bb5
23Hibbard JH, Peters E: Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health 2003; 24:413–433. doi:10.1146/annurev. publhealth.24.100901.141005
24Moser A, Korstjens I, van der Weijden T, et al. Patient’s decision making in selecting a hospital for elective orthopaedic surgery. J Eval Clin Pract 2010; 16:1262–1268. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01311.x
25Gosselin P, Poitras P. Use of an Internet “Viral” Marketing Software Platform in Health Promotion J Med Internet Res. 2008; 10:47. doi:10.2196/jmir.1127
26CumScore I: Regional Online Penetration Highest in the Netherlands and Nordic Countries. 2008 [http://www.comscore. com/Press_Events/ Pres Releases 2008/08 Russia Internet_Growth], (accessed 22 January 2011).
27McKeown L, Lafontaine L. Canadian Internet use survey. Statistics Canada. [2008 Aug 21]. http://www.statcan.ca/ Daily/English/060815/d060815b.htm.
28Blandino MV, Govantes MA, Chaves VC, et al. Information channels and the dynamics of uptake of living kidney donors: a retrospective study in a reference area. Transplant Proc 2011; 43:2157–2159. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.05.004
29Álvarez M, Martèn E, Garcèa A, et al. Opinion survey on renal donation from living donor. Nefrologia. 2005; 57(Suppl 2):57–61
30Hanif F, Sivaprakasam R, Butler A, et al. Information about liver transplantation on the World Wide Web. Med Inform Internet Med. 2006; 31:153–160. doi:10.1080/14639230500376044
31Moody EM, Clemens KK, Storsley L, et al. Improving on-line information for potential living kidney donors. Kidney Int 2007; 71:1062–1070. doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5002168
