Measuring Patients’ Level of Knowledge Regarding Kidney Transplantation in Eastern Hungary

An integrative literature review of kidney transplantation knowledge tools

“…For KT patients [ 4 , 8 , 9 , 19 – 22 ], domains include: knowledge of immunosuppressants [ 4 , 8 , 9 , 19 – 22 ], kidney function [ 4 , 9 ], rejection [ 21 ], knowledge of side effects, prevention of complications after KT [ 4 , 8 , 9 ], lifestyle [ 9 , 21 ], exercise and weight control [ 4 , 8 ], diet [ 4 , 8 , 9 ], and smoking, drinking, emotional difficulties and coping [ 8 ]. In contrast, domains of knowledge in KT candidates [ 5 , 11 , 14 – 15 , 17 ] include knowledge of kidney disease [ 15 ], dialysis [ 17 ], KT [ 15 , 17 ], living-donor KT (LDKT) [ 17 ], immunosuppressants, side effects, rejection, complications, infection control, lifestyle, terminology for KT [ 5 ], kidney function after KT, life satisfaction, waiting period for KT, duration of use of the transplanted kidney [ 11 ], and the clinical outcomes of LDKT [ 14 ]. The domains of the tools used in studies with both groups (KT patients and candidates) [ 6 , 16 , 18 ] include knowledge of dialysis and KT, living donation [ 16 ], side effects, rejection, complications, infection control, lifestyle, and terminology for KT [ 6 , 18 ].…”

“…Table 2 presents the validation of KT knowledge measurement tools. The Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test (R3K-T) [ 17 ], the Kidney Transplant Understanding Tool (K-TUT) [ 5 , 6 ], the Korean version of K-TUT [ 18 ], Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation (KART) [ 11 ], knowledge about clinical outcomes with live-donor kidney transplantation [ 14 ], and self-management knowledge for KT [ 8 ] confirmed both reliability and validity in psychometrics. The tools verified only by reliability and validity were self-management knowledge of KT [ 4 , 9 ] and medication knowledge related to KT [ 22 ].…”

“…However, the K-TUT [ 5 , 6 ] and the Korean version of the K-TUT [ 18 ] additionally verified their reliability using kappa and interclass correlation (ICC). Six studies used content validity to measure validity, and the K-TUT [ 17 ] additionally used factor and item analyses [ 5 , 6 ]. Convergent validity, criterion validity, and item analysis were used in the Korean version of the K-TUT [ 18 ], whereas construct validity and item analysis were used in the KART [ 11 ].…”

“…Convergent validity, criterion validity, and item analysis were used in the Korean version of the K-TUT [ 18 ], whereas construct validity and item analysis were used in the KART [ 11 ]. Some tools used in the studies did not provide both reliability and validity of the domains, including patients’ knowledge of renal replacement therapies [ 17 ], patients’ knowledge about immunosuppressive medication (ISM) [ 19 , 20 ], Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) questionnaire [ 15 ], and knowledge-level five days post-transplantation [ 21 ]. Of the 13 tools, 10 were available for quality assessment, 2 were rated as “adequate” or higher, 4 as “weak,” and 4 as “very weak” ( Table 3 ).…”

“…The tools for KT candidates included some knowledge assessment that is applicable only to candidates, such as knowledge of dialysis and the waiting period, patients’ knowledge of renal replacement therapies [ 17 ] and R3K-T [ 16 ], including dialysis. Hence, tools for KT candidates are limited to be used as tools for measuring KT knowledge.…”