Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder in Adult Liver Transplant Recipients—A Single Centre Experience
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Whitrock et al. Novel Study of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Post-Reperfusion Liver Biopsies after Transplantation Using COVID-19-Positive Donor Allografts. Transplantology 2024, 5, 46–50
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Transplantology
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/transplantology6020017
transplantology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Caregiver Perceptions of an Educational Animation for Mobilizing Social Support in Kidney Transplant Access: A Qualitative Study

by
Maria Keller
1,*,
Megumi Inoue
2,
Naoru Koizumi
3,
Samantha Meyo
4,
Anne Solbu
1,
Matthew Handmacher
1 and
Liise Kayler
1,5
1
Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA
2
Department of Social Work, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
3
Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
4
The Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
5
Transplant and Kidney Care Regional Center of Excellence, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, NY 14226, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Transplantology 2025, 6(2), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology6020017
Submission received: 4 March 2025 / Revised: 29 May 2025 / Accepted: 4 June 2025 / Published: 10 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Solid Organ Transplantation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Animated video is promising to educate and empower caregiving and provide additional social support for kidney transplant (KT) access; yet, it has not been tested. Our clinical-research group developed a caregiver-directed educational animated video to complement an existing intervention currently being adapted to stimulate social network engagement in KT access. This qualitative study assessed the videos’ learning and sharing applicability to KT caregivers, as well as recommendations for improvement of the video and the transplant centers’ program to meet caregivers’ needs. Methods: Caregivers of KT-seekers (n = 17) and KT-recipients (n = 9) at a single center were individually interviewed after viewing the video remotely on their own device. Interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis with a deductive approach. Results: Five overarching themes emerged about the caregivers’ perceptions of the animated video: (1) clear and engaging, (2) a good overview of caregiving, (3) a way to refresh knowledge and show others how they can contribute to caregiving, (4) additional information needed, and (5) desired more transplant center communication and support. Conclusions: An animated video to promote caregiving in transplant access was well received as an entry point for education and is potentially applicable for sharing to mobilize additional social support.

1. Introduction

Getting a kidney transplant (KT) requires a considerable degree of self-efficacy by patients, including navigating a complex healthcare system and finding a living donor. Despite the efforts of medical providers, patients feel overwhelmed, have misperceptions about the transplant process, and experience discomfort when asking for a donor [1,2]. Social support, such as that provided by caregivers (also referred to as lay-, informal- or family- caregivers), improves the success of KT-seekers in two main ways: (1) by offering emotional and practical support (caregiving) and (2) by advocating about the need for living donation (donor advocacy) [3,4,5,6]. Although caregiving and donor advocacy are beneficial to KT-seekers, they can be challenging to provide [7]. The ongoing and uncertain nature of chronic illnesses and the complex transplant process can strain support resources.
Evidence-based interventions for transplant access have offered support to caregivers by providing education [4,5,6] and emotional support or resilience training [8,9,10]. But currently, most interventions are aimed at a designated or primary caregiver [9]. These primary caregivers are often the patient’s spouse or parent and are typically the same individuals responsible for providing regular care as well as assisting with donor advocacy [9]. We contend that everyone—not only primary caregivers but also other social network members—can benefit from education focused on how to participate in supporting KT-seekers. A 2019 consensus conference led by the American Society of Transplantation (AST) recommended, as the highest priority, not only the refinement of educational and other resources for caregivers, but also, crucially, interventions aimed at mobilizing additional social supports [11].
There is a paucity of education targeting audiences beyond primary caregivers, thus warranting interventions applicable to all members of a KT-seeker’s social network. The delivery of education to individuals about KT access has generally required attendance at physical sites on scheduled intervals. Social network attendance at physical sessions is low, and 33% to 100% did not attend sessions [4,6,12,13]. Remote interventions that are flexibly delivered may be especially relevant to transplant caregivers and other supporters who tend to be isolated and have time constraints since they are often working while providing care [14].
Animated video education is a method that enhances self-learning over a range of health and clinical contexts [15]. As a digital medium, animated video education can be delivered remotely and flexibly, including on small devices. In our prior intervention development research, we have demonstrated the potential of animated video as a means of conveying complex information in an easy-to-understand manner and modelling behaviors; it is also a tool for raising awareness about a topic through video sharing [16]. As an initial step to deliver transplant access information to caregivers and other supporters, our research team recently developed a brief animated educational video. The video is intended to be a component of a larger video-based intervention that includes a content delivery system (further described in the methods section). The current study reports caregivers’ perceptions of the caregiver-directed video. Results provide insights on whether messages in the video were received as intended and shortcomings of the video, which could aid in refining the full intervention to be responsive to transplant caregivers to learn and share with social network members, and assist in understanding how transplant knowledge translates to design content for all caregivers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured individual interviews with lay transplant caregivers at a Northeastern transplant center in the United States. This study followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines [17] (Table S1) and also applied the framework developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) [18] to ensure the credibility of the data and findings. This study received approval from a northeastern state university’s Institutional Review Board.

2.2. Setting

This work emerged from previous research of an animation-based intervention for kidney transplant access (KidneyTIME), conducted at a transplant center within a safety-net hospital in a northeastern US city, where the community has high rates of chronic disease, and 27.6% of the population is low-income [19]. The caregiver-directed video was created to be a part of the larger KidneyTIME intervention. The design process of the video was evidence-based, theory-guided, stakeholder-engaged, and human-centered. This process is described below, in terms of theoretical underpinnings, script, and video design.
Theory. The development of the video drew upon various theories. Self-Efficacy Theory was operationalized as creating characters that were inclusive to the intended audience, demonstrating behaviors, providing benefit-framed messages, and showing support of clinicians and staff [20]. The content was written using health communication principles (everyday language, active voice, conversational style, concise sentences) and was organized using elaboration theory (presents information in a logical sequence) [21]. Animation design was informed by the cognitive theory of multimedia learning [22], which describes how to align words and images so that information can be processed and remembered better than words alone, as well as other learning principles (omit unnecessary elements, minimal on-screen text, humanistic characters and scenarios, human voice).
Script. The educational content for the video was derived from a literature review, interviews with local transplant caregivers that assessed the perceptions and knowledge of kidney transplant access [14], and clinical expertise. It aims to present information to caregivers without assuming how viewers prefer to be involved in transplant care. The key content domains in the video were (1) what caregivers can do to help transplant candidates navigate the transplant system, (2) the opportunity to boost donor search activities, (3) the importance of caregiver self-care and mobilizing additional social support, and (4) the availability of support groups and medical professionals to consult with them. The video design was an educational story (narrative) where a female KT-seeker accepts help from a female friend (caregiver) in the transplant journey. The narrative style of the video provided the opportunity to show the caregiver character enacting the roles and responsibilities of caregiving. The educational content was rendered into a script by a transplant surgeon (LK).
Video. The senior author, who has extensive experience working with kidney transplant patients and making educational animated videos, oversaw video production, working closely with the artist and the animator. A preliminary video prototype was reviewed and refined by a health communication expert, a medical anthropologist, a behavioral researcher, and a 6-member community advisory board (CAB) consisting of three kidney transplant recipients, one caregiver, one organ donation educator, and a dialysis social worker, predominantly of minoritized race and ethnicity. The CAB members provided feedback on video content, characters, images, wording, tone, and cultural sensitivity. Textual changes were made mainly to simplify and re-order sentences. The content and visuals were aligned with the larger intervention, which is targeted to a multi-cultural population in a low- to middle-income area [23]. For example, characters were modified to represent a broad range of races, ethnicities, ages, and body types. Images and scenes represent objects and activities typical of low- and middle-income areas. The design features of the videos included two-dimensional schematic images, gentle motion, and optimization for small-screen viewing, as previously described [24]. The video was 3.05 min long; it is named “Caregivers Make Transplant Possible”, and screenshots are provided in Figure 1. The video was assessed for acceptability and perceived utility by transplant caregivers.

2.3. Participants

Convenience sampling was used, focusing on caregivers of KT-recipients known to the researchers, balanced with caregivers of KT-seekers available in the transplant clinic, allowing the selection of both experienced and novice caregivers. Between October 2023 and June 2024, caregivers of KT-recipients were recruited through email invitation, and caregivers of KT-seekers were approached when they accompanied the patient to the initial clinic visit at the transplant center. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18, English-speaking, and email or text access. Exclusion criteria included lack of internet access and current participation in any educational intervention study. We invited 78 individuals to this study (33 emailed, 45 verbally in-clinic), of whom 75 agreed to participate and were sent up to two emails with a link to the study, and 26 signed electronic consent, completed the electronic survey, viewed the video (detected electronically), and completed the interview. Nine were caregivers of KT-recipients, and 17 were caregivers of KT-seekers. Recruitment concluded when data saturation was reached, meaning no new themes or sub-themes emerged. Illustration of the flow of participants, including sample sizes, is found in Figure 2.

2.4. Data Collection

Following paper or electronic consent, participants completed an online survey that included standard sociodemographics. The subgroup of caregivers of KT-seekers also completed five scaled questions regarding their readiness for various caregiving roles and communication self-efficacy about living kidney donation. All were shown the study video embedded in the survey. After electronic confirmation of video viewing, participants were invited to a telephone interview. All interviews were conducted by a research coordinator trained in qualitative techniques (CH). The main topics of the semi-structured phone interviews were satisfaction with the video, suitability of content, and sharing applicability, as well as recommendations for improvement of the video and the transplant centers’ program. The interview guide is provided in Figure 3. Interviews lasted from 5 to 22 min (average of 10 min). Participants were compensated $25 for the interview.

2.5. Data Analysis

Sociodemographic and scaled questions were analyzed using summary statistics. For the qualitative data, all interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were read and analyzed using the content analysis method by the research team, which comprised of the primary investigator (LK), a social scientist with qualitative research experience (MK), a social worker with research expertise on caregiving (MI), a biostatistician (NK), as well as a research assistant (SM), who was trained by in qualitative procedures by MK. All research team members read the interviews and closely engaged with the data through observation of the elements most relevant to the question being pursued, documentation, and note-taking. The coding scheme was developed inductively by a social scientist, AS. Three coders (MK, CH, and SM) independently coded each interview transcript using Dedoose (version 9.2.12) and met weekly to review the codes and discuss any disagreements to reach consensus. Analytic memos were used throughout the process, and descriptions of the codes were developed. These were presented to the rest of the research team during bi-weekly meetings, where they discussed, sorted, and compared the codes, ultimately identifying overarching themes. The credibility of the findings, based on clinical experience, was reviewed by the caregiver expert (MI), the PI, a transplant surgeon (LK), and the transplant center’s CAB, which included a caregiver.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

A total of 26 interviews were conducted with 17 caregivers of KT-seekers and 9 caregivers of KT-recipients. Of these participants, 73% were female, 68% were non-Hispanic White, 38% did not have a college degree, and 12% reported a total annual household income of ≤$30,000 at the time of the interview (Table 1). The majority had known the patient for more than 10 years. Prior to video viewing, the majority of caregivers of KT-seekers were not thinking of being a living kidney donor (76%), and about half reported that they were in the beginning stages of understanding how to help someone navigate the transplant process and find a living donor (Table 2). Most (65%) strongly agreed they had enough information to start a conversation about living kidney donation, yet only 29% felt they understood how to find a living donor. Even fewer strongly agreed to feeling comfortable having the donation conversation (12%).

3.2. Qualitative Results

From the qualitative content analysis of interviews, five overarching themes emerged about the caregivers’ perceptions of the animated video: (1) clear and engaging, (2) a good overview of caregiving, (3) a way to refresh knowledge and show others how they can contribute to caregiving, (4) additional information needed and (5) desired transplant center communication and support.
Clear and engaging. Most participants found the video to be clear and engaging, which had to do with the use of “simple terms”, “enjoyable” images”, “just long enough” duration, and gentle pace: “it gave me time to absorb what they were actually saying”. Caregivers commented that the video should not be longer for purposes of convenience: “The time it takes me to watch a video versus like sometimes calling someone or setting something up, you know, when I can go to the video, that’s a lot better for me”. Shorter videos also prevent boredom: if it’s too long, somebody might get a little bored”.
A good overview of caregiving. Caregivers reported that the video content was “a good introduction”, particularly for caregivers and patients “at the very beginning stages of thinking about this whole process”. When asked about the main message of the video, caregiver responses fell into three categories: the need for caregivers, the extent of the role, and the importance of caregiver self-care. Caregivers reported that patients need help to navigate the transplant process and that it is not something a patient could do alone and “be successful at it”. Caregivers described many support actions, that were also depicted in the video, such as “shopping”, “cutting the lawn”, “clearing the walk”, and making sure patients “get to their appointments”, “eat right”, “remember things”, and “take medications”. Also mentioned was “offer to be a donor”. Caregivers reported on the extent of the caregiving role, stating it was “bigger than you might imagine” and “a lot of time involved”, and that it is a “continual process” that encompasses “the very beginning until well after the transplant has occurred”. Participants also emphasized that caregivers should take care of themselves: “When you’re a support person, make sure that you’re okay so that you can help the other person”. When asked if they learned anything new or if any information in the video surprised them, many noted that the video showed other support people: “a lot of people helping”. A few expressed that they did not know that others could contribute to caregiving besides the primary caregiver: “I thought it would just be one person, but in the video, it looked like there could be a couple of different people who can actually step in and help”.
A way to refresh knowledge and show others how to contribute to caregiving. When asked if they would view more videos similar to the one provided and share such videos, caregivers universally responded positively. Caregivers reported that the video would be useful for refreshing their knowledge, particularly after the transplant evaluation appointment: “sort of like a little recall cause you get an awful lot of information in that one-day visit”. Caregivers said they would want to watch more similar videos: “I think there was more on social media that you could direct people to. I hate to say it, but people don’t read anymore. They watch videos. So I think yes, if there was more videos, I think that would be more education for the lazy people out there. I’m not lazy. I was just spread really thin”. Caregivers indicated that they would share the video and offered reasons for sharing: Sharing would help others “relate and understand” what the patient is going through. Sharing would inform others about what caregivers do, especially to aid in asking others for help with caregiving: “It’s a good video to share, especially if the person’s gonna be a caregiver… cause sometimes a lot of people or patients do not know what to expect in a caregiver”. Sharing the video could be used to communicate about living donation “gets more word out” and could aid in donor decision-making: “For those that are thinking of, or maybe never thought about it but now would think about being a donor, I think it’s a great thing”.
Additional information needed. Caregivers wanted more information than the introductory video offered, including more “details and more specifics” about caregiver responsibilities and the transplant and donation process, such as “the evaluation appointment”, “pre-op”, “the surgery and the follow ups”, “medications”, “blood work”, “dietary needs”, and “specific details about the living donation process and resources that help living donors such as FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act)”, and programs that “offset the expenses of traveling for gas money, staying in a hotel, meals, and lost wages”.
Desired transplant center communication and support. When asked how the transplant center can help caregivers, respondents suggested improved communication with transplant staff to “get answers” to questions and “pass the information along and get information back”, regarding the patient’s evaluation process. They wondered if it was okay to call the transplant center on behalf of the patient and would have liked a list of actions to take. Some participants expressed a need for support for themselves, including “someone that I can relieve my stress to” and “communities out there and stuff that can help, Facebook and stuff like that”.

4. Discussion

We performed a qualitative content analysis of 26 semi-structured interviews with transplant caregivers about a video meant to provide foundational information and stimulate engagement in KT access by caregivers and other social network members. The results of this study identified four themes that explain caregivers’ acceptability and utility considerations of the video. Overall, caregivers reported that the video was clear and engaging and provided a good overview of caregiving. Comments indicated the desire for more information about caregiver responsibilities, as well as the kidney recipient and donor process and outcomes, and that they would watch other similar videos. Caregivers indicated the potential utility of sharing the video to mobilize additional social support and to inform potential kidney donors. Key future features for supporting caregivers were more communication with transplant staff and connection to support resources.
Themes highlight several aspects of the animated video that appealed to transplant caregivers and may be useful to other knowledge translators. Theme 1 highlights that caregivers were satisfied with an animated video and found it clear and engaging. They especially valued the brief duration. These positive findings may be due to the efficient learning enabled by animation because of its lower demand on cognitive processing [25,26]. Keeping educational videos short, such as under 6 min, is also considered crucial for engaging viewers and maximizing attention [27]. Theme 2 indicated that the video was sufficient as an overview of caregiving. Caregivers recognized central concepts and ideas portrayed in the video that suggest the messages were received as intended, such as the critical role of caregivers, the extent of the role, the importance of caregiver self-care, and the opportunity to engage additional social supports. The scope of the video was limited to foundational information related to the purpose of promoting broad caregiver engagement. Health communication best practices indicate the importance of chunking information and eliminating unnecessary details in order to deliver a main message [28]. In Theme 3, caregivers were interested in viewing other similar videos, indicating receptivity to the animated video medium. Caregivers anticipated sharing the video for the purposes of fostering greater social network involvement and to inform about kidney donation. Caregivers’ proposed reasons for sharing the video aligned with the researchers’ intent for the video. Previous research by our group indicates that short videos have the potential to be easily and widely shared via email, text messages, and social media [16]. Other research suggests that fostering greater social network involvement may decrease the burden on the primary caregiver and enhance their coping abilities [29]. In themes 4 and 5, caregivers indicated the desire for more information about kidney patients and donors and for more communication with transplant staff and connection with resources. Although the video indicated the availability of transplant staff to consult with them, it did not describe how each role is most effectively manifested, and this will be provided in the larger intervention. The finding that topics often requested by caregivers were about kidney patients and donors suggests the viability of including caregiver-directed content within a single intervention approach that involves other members of the larger group, including patients and donors. However, information alone may not be sufficient, and additional research will be needed to ensure that caregivers’ information and support needs are met in the full intervention. Similar topics and support efforts considered helpful by caregivers have been reported in other studies [11,30,31]. Prior studies have emphasized that support provided by health services includes promoting expanded care to caregivers [32].
Remote transplant interventions that include caregivers have been rarely tested. In the post-transplant phase, investigators have shown promising results with tele-education [33] and virtually delivered peer-support groups [10]. Few remote interventions exist for promoting transplant access [34]. A multimedia website [34] significantly increased the knowledge of patients and family members, but not all groups benefited; low-income and less educated individuals had lower knowledge scores, and low-literacy learners were excluded from the study. This is important since nearly 40% of individuals with kidney failure have low health literacy [35,36], and members of their social network are likely to have similar levels of health literacy, including challenges processing web-based information [37,38].

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. Data were collected from a small sample at one transplant center. The sample was composed primarily of white, English-speaking spouses, and annual income over $50,000; this requires caution when applying the findings to broader populations. A more diverse sample may have provided a broader range of experience. Many caregivers who agreed to participate or consented to this study did not complete the study interview, possibly resulting in selection bias. Our chosen analysis, content analysis, is driven by arranging data into themes, but this type of analysis lacks the capacity to interpret data beyond the quotations or to analyze the nuances of language use, which should be recognized. The interview guide was centered around caregivers’ reactions to the video content; therefore, insights are limited to this context. For example, caregivers commented on the video content from their own experiences, anticipated the content needs of future viewers, and made recommendations for future content.

5. Conclusions

To our knowledge, there are no studies in the transplant literature of caregivers’ perceptions of education developed for them. In this study, the caregivers of KT-seekers and KT-recipients described a broad range of experiences about the learning and sharing applicability of an introductory caregiver-directed video previously created by our group. Results provide insights into whether the messages in the video were received as intended, as well as the video’s shortcomings. These findings could aid in refining the full video intervention for social network members offering support to KT-seekers and assist in understanding how transplant knowledge translates to design content for caregivers. The positive findings support the next phase of research to test the inclusion of the video in the KidneyTIME intervention, along with other refinements and expansions to ensure the suitability of the full intervention for engaging and empowering social supporters for KT access. New means must be taken to reach caregivers and beyond caregivers to involve them in the transplant care process and educate them about transplantation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/transplantology6020017/s1, Table S1: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.

Author Contributions

L.K.: Participated in conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, writing—reviewing and editing, and funding acquisition. M.K., M.I. and N.K.: Participated in conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—reviewing and editing; S.M.: Participated in data curation, formal analysis, and writing—reviewing and editing; A.S. and M.H.: Participated in formal analysis and writing—reviewing and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Kayler was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under the award number R01DK129845.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the University at Buffalo Institutional Review Board. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University at Buffalo, SUNY (protocol code 00002771; date of approval 9 August 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The qualitative data used and analyzed in this study are not publicly available because the data contain personal and potentially identifying information. Quantitative data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the research coordinator, Colleen Hagler, for her assistance with data collection and entry and for her collaborative efforts.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of our study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
KTKidney transplant
CABCommunity Advisory Board

References

  1. Crenesse-Cozien, N.; Dolph, B.; Said, M.; Feeley, T.H.; Kayler, L.K. Kidney Transplant Evaluation: Inferences from Qualitative Interviews with African American Patients and their Providers. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities 2019, 6, 917–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lewis, L.; Dolph, B.; Said, M.; Feeley, T.H.; Kayler, L.K. Enabling Conversations: African American Patients’ Changing Perceptions of Kidney Transplantation. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities 2019, 6, 536–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Clark, C.R.; Hicks, L.S.; Keogh, J.H.; Epstein, A.M.; Ayanian, J.Z. Promoting access to renal transplantation: The role of social support networks in completing pre-transplant evaluations. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2008, 23, 1187–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. King, E.A.; Ruck, J.M.; Garonzik-Wang, J.; Bowring, M.G.; Kumar, K.; Purnell, T.; Cameron, A.; Segev, D.L. Addressing Racial Disparities in Live Donor Kidney Transplantation Through Education and Advocacy Training. Transpl. Direct 2020, 6, e593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Locke, J.E.; Reed, R.D.; Kumar, V.; Berry, B.; Hendricks, D.; Carter, A.; Shelton, B.A.; Mustian, M.N.; MacLennan, P.A.; Qu, H.; et al. Enhanced Advocacy and Health Systems Training Through Patient Navigation Increases Access to Living-donor Kidney Transplantation. Transplantation 2020, 104, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. LaPointe Rudow, D.; Geatrakas, S.; Armenti, J.; Tomback, A.; Khaim, R.; Porcello, L.; Pan, S.; Arvelakis, A.; Shapiro, R. Increasing living donation by implementing the Kidney Coach Program. Clin. Transpl. 2019, 33, e13471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jesse, M.T.; Rubinstein, E.; Eshelman, A.; Wee, C.; Tankasala, M.; Li, J.; Abouljoud, M. Lifestyle and Self-Management by Those Who Live It: Patients Engaging Patients in a Chronic Disease Model. Perm. J. 2016, 20, 15–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stonnington, C.M.; Darby, B.; Santucci, A.; Mulligan, P.; Pathuis, P.; Cuc, A.; Hentz, J.G.; Zhang, N.; Mulligan, D.; Sood, A. A resilience intervention involving mindfulness training for transplant patients and their caregivers. Clin. Transpl. 2016, 30, 1466–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reed, R.D.; Killian, A.C.; Mustian, M.N.; Hendricks, D.H.; Baldwin, K.N.; Kumar, V.; Dionne-Odom, J.N.; Saag, K.; Hites, L.; Ivankova, N.V.; et al. The Living Donor Navigator Program Provides Support Tools for Caregivers. Prog. Transpl. 2021, 31, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Giordano, T.; Weinstock Esq., J.L.; Nathan, H.M. Assessing the Impact of an Online Support Group on the Emotional Health of Transplant Caregivers. Transplantation 2018, 102, S309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jesse, M.T.; Hansen, B.; Bruschwein, H.; Chen, G.; Nonterah, C.; Peipert, J.D.; Dew, M.A.; Thomas, C.; Ortega, A.D.; Balliet, W.; et al. Findings and recommendations from the organ transplant caregiver initiative: Moving clinical care and research forward. Am. J. Transpl. 2021, 21, 950–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Pradel, F.G.; Suwannaprom, P.; Mullins, C.D.; Sadler, J.; Bartlett, S.T. Short-term impact of an educational program promoting live donor kidney transplantation in dialysis centers. Prog. Transpl. 2008, 18, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boulware, L.E.; Hill-Briggs, F.; Kraus, E.S.; Melancon, J.K.; Falcone, B.; Ephraim, P.L.; Jaar, B.G.; Gimenez, L.; Choi, M.; Senga, M.; 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. 2013, 61, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Solbu, A.; Cadzow, R.B.; Pullano, T.; Brinser-Day, S.; Tumiel-Berhalter, L.; Kayler, L.K. Interviews With Lay Caregivers About Their Experiences Supporting Patients Throughout Kidney Transplantation. Prog. Transpl. 2024, 34, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Feeley, T.; Keller, M.; Kayler, L. Using Animated Videos to Increase Patient Knowledge: A Meta-Analytic Review. Health Educ. Behav. 2023, 50, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kayler, L.K.; Nie, J.; Solbu, A.; Keller, M.; Handmacher, M. Use of Educational Animated Videos by Kidney Transplant Seekers and Social Network Members in a Randomized Trial (KidneyTIME). Kidney Dial. 2025, 5, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Booth, A.; Hannes, K.; Harden, A.; Noyes, J.; Harris, J.; Tong, A. COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies). In Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User’s Manual; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 214–226. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lincoln, Y.S.; Guba, E.G. Naturalistic Inquiry; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  19. United States Census Bureau. Available online: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/buffalocitynewyork (accessed on 19 August 2021).
  20. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  21. Reigeluth, C.M. In Search of a Better Way to Organize Instruction: The Elaboration Theory. J. Instr. Dev. 1979, 2, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mayer, R.E. Multimedia Learning; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kayler, L.K.; Dolph, B.; Seibert, R.; Keller, M.; Cadzow, R.; Feeley, T.H. Development of the living donation and kidney transplantation information made easy (KidneyTIME) educational animations. Clin. Transpl. 2020, 34, e13830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Feeley, T.H.; Kayler, L.K. Using Animation to Address Disparities in Kidney Transplantation. Health Commun. 2024, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Leiner, M.; Handal, G.; Williams, D. Patient communication: A multidisciplinary approach using animated cartoons. Health Educ. Res. 2004, 19, 591–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Slater, M.; Rouner, D. Entertainment education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Commun. Theory 2002, 12, 173–191. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dzara, K.; Chen, D.T.; Haidet, P.; Murray, H.; Tackett, S.; Chisolm, M.S. The effective use of videos in medical education. Acad. Med. 2020, 95, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. King, K.W.; Freimuth, V.; Lee, M.; Johnson-Turbes, C.A. The effectiveness of bundled health messages on recall. Am. J. Health Promot. 2013, 27 (Suppl. S3), S28–S35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Hart, A.; Bruin, M.; Chu, S.; Matas, A.; Partin, M.R.; Israni, A.K. Decision support needs of kidney transplant candidates regarding the deceased donor waiting list: A qualitative study and conceptual framework. Clin. Transpl. 2019, 33, e13530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chang, Y.H.; Lai, Y.H.; Tsai, M.K.; Shun, S.C. Care Needs for Organ Transplant Recipients Scale: Development and psychometric testing. J. Ren. Care 2021, 47, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. DePasquale, N.; Cabacungan, A.; Ephraim, P.L.; Lewis-Boyér, L.; Powe, N.R.; Boulware, L.E. Family Members’ Experiences With Dialysis and Kidney Transplantation. Kidney Med. 2019, 1, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Burges Watson, D.; Adams, J.; Azevedo, L.B.; Haighton, C. Promoting physical activity with a school-based dance mat exergaming intervention: Qualitative findings from a natural experiment. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Amonoo, H.L.; Deary, E.C.; Harnedy, L.E.; Daskalakis, E.P.; Goldschen, L.; Desir, M.C. It takes a village: The importance of social support after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, a qualitative study. Transplant. Cell. Ther. 2022, 28, e700–e701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gordon, E.J.; Feinglass, J.; Carney, P.; Vera, K.; Olivero, M.; Black, A.; O’Connor, K.G.; Baumgart, J.M.; Caicedo, J.C. A Website Intervention to Increase Knowledge About Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation Among Hispanic/Latino Dialysis Patients. Prog. Transpl. 2016, 26, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dageforde, L.A.; Petersen, A.W.; Feurer, I.D.; Cavanaugh, K.L.; Harms, K.A.; Ehrenfeld, J.M.; Moore, D.E. Health literacy of living kidney donors and kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2014, 98, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kranenburg, L.W.; Zuidema, W.C.; Weimar, W.; Hilhorst, M.T.; Ijzermans, J.N.; Passchier, J.; Busschbach, J.J. Psychological barriers for living kidney donation: How to inform the potential donors? Transplantation 2007, 84, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ladin, K.; Hanto, D.W. Understanding disparities in transplantation: Do social networks provide the missing clue? Am. J. Transpl. 2010, 10, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Schulz, A.J.; Williams, D.R.; Israel, B.A.; Lempert, L.B. Racial and spatial relations as fundamental determinants of health in Detroit. Milbank Q. 2002, 80, 677–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Transplantology 06 00017 g001
Figure 1. Screenshots of caregiver-directed video scenes.
Figure 1. Screenshots of caregiver-directed video scenes.
Transplantology 06 00017 g001
Transplantology 06 00017 g002
Figure 2. Diagram of Study Design.
Figure 2. Diagram of Study Design.
Transplantology 06 00017 g002
Transplantology 06 00017 g003
Figure 3. Interview Guide *.
Figure 3. Interview Guide *.
Transplantology 06 00017 g003
Table 1. Baseline caregiver participant demographics and survey items for KT-seekers.
Table 1. Baseline caregiver participant demographics and survey items for KT-seekers.
Total (n = 26)Caregivers of
KT-Seekers (n = 17)		Caregivers of
KT-Recipients (n = 9)
Characteristic% (n)% (n)% (n)
Sex: Female73% (19)76% (13)67% (6)
Age (years):
   18–4938% (10)35% (6)44% (4)
   50–6027% (7)24% (4)33% (3)
   More than 6035% (9)41% (7)22% (2)
Race/ethnicity:
   Black or African American23% (6)35% (6)0% (0)
   Non-Hispanic White68% (18)53% (9)100% (9)
   Hispanic or Latino4% (1)6% (1)0% (0)
   Other4% (1)6% (1)0% (0)
Employment: Working88% (23)82% (14)100% (9)
Income:
   Less than $30,00012% (4)24% (4)0% (0)
   $30,000 to $50,00019% (4)24% (4)0% (0)
   More than $50,00046% (12)29% (5)78% (7)
   Prefer not to answer23% (6)24% (4)22% (2)
College degree:62% (16)53% (9)78% (7)
Relationship to the patient:
   Spouse50% (13)47% (8)56% (5)
   Sibling27% (7)29% (5)22% (2)
   Parent23% (6)24% (4)22% (2)
Time known the patient:
   1–5 years4% (1)0% (0)11% (1)
   6–9 years0% (0)0% (0)0% (0)
   More than 10 years96% (25)100% (17)89% (8)
Access to a smartphone:96% (25)100% (17)89% (8)
Access to a computer:81% (21)76% (13)89% (8)
Uses email:96% (25)94% (16)100% (9)
Watches videos online:88% (23)92% (14)100% (9)
Device used in this study:
   Computer19% (5)18% (3)22% (2)
   Cellphone54% (14)60% (12)22% (2)
   Tablet27% (7)12% (2)56% (5)
Social media frequency:
   Less than once a week27% (7)35% (6)11% (1)
   Once a week or more73% (19)65% (11)89% (8)
Number of close friends or others:
   ≤354% (14)59% (10)44% (4)
   4 or more46% (12)41% (7)56% (5)
Table 2. Survey items for kidney transplant seekers (n = 17).
Table 2. Survey items for kidney transplant seekers (n = 17).
Survey Item% (n)
Caregiver role readiness
What are your thoughts about helping someone get through the kidney transplant process?
   I am not sure how to help someone navigate the transplant process.0% (0)
   I am beginning to understand how to help someone navigate the transplant process.53% (9)
   I understand how to help someone navigate the transplant process.24% (4)
   I have helped someone navigate the transplant process before.24% (4)
What are your thoughts about helping someone find a living kidney donor?
   I am not sure how to help someone find a living kidney donor.18% (3)
   I am beginning to understand how to help someone find a living kidney donor.47% (8)
   I understand how to help someone find a living kidney donor.29% (5)
   I have helped someone find a living kidney donor.0% (0)
   The kidney patient does not want a living kidney donor.6% (1)
What are your thoughts about donating a kidney yourself?
   I am not thinking about being a living donor.76% (13)
   I am beginning to think about being a living donor.0% (0)
   I am seriously considering being a living donor.0% (0)
   I am being evaluated as a possible living donor.24% (4)
   I have been approved to be a donor.0% (0)
Living kidney donor communication self-efficacy
I have all the information I need to start a conversation about living kidney donation.
   Strongly disagree6% (1)
   Disagree12% (2)
   Agree18% (3)
   Strongly agree65% (11)
I am comfortable discussing the option of living kidney donation with people in my life.
   Strongly disagree6% (1)
   Disagree0% (0)
   Agree82% (14)
   Strongly agree12% (2)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Keller, M.; Inoue, M.; Koizumi, N.; Meyo, S.; Solbu, A.; Handmacher, M.; Kayler, L. Caregiver Perceptions of an Educational Animation for Mobilizing Social Support in Kidney Transplant Access: A Qualitative Study. Transplantology 2025, 6, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology6020017

AMA Style

Keller M, Inoue M, Koizumi N, Meyo S, Solbu A, Handmacher M, Kayler L. Caregiver Perceptions of an Educational Animation for Mobilizing Social Support in Kidney Transplant Access: A Qualitative Study. Transplantology. 2025; 6(2):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology6020017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Keller, Maria, Megumi Inoue, Naoru Koizumi, Samantha Meyo, Anne Solbu, Matthew Handmacher, and Liise Kayler. 2025. "Caregiver Perceptions of an Educational Animation for Mobilizing Social Support in Kidney Transplant Access: A Qualitative Study" Transplantology 6, no. 2: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology6020017

APA Style

Keller, M., Inoue, M., Koizumi, N., Meyo, S., Solbu, A., Handmacher, M., & Kayler, L. (2025). Caregiver Perceptions of an Educational Animation for Mobilizing Social Support in Kidney Transplant Access: A Qualitative Study. Transplantology, 6(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology6020017

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop