Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 4:26:e56664.
doi: 10.2196/56664.

Self-Management Using eHealth Technologies for Liver Transplant Recipients: Scoping Review

Affiliations

Self-Management Using eHealth Technologies for Liver Transplant Recipients: Scoping Review

Soo Hyun Kim et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Liver transplantation has become increasingly common as a last-resort treatment for end-stage liver diseases and liver cancer, with continually improving success rates and long-term survival rates. Nevertheless, liver transplant recipients face lifelong challenges in self-management, including immunosuppressant therapy, lifestyle adjustments, and navigating complex health care systems. eHealth technologies hold the potential to aid and optimize self-management outcomes, but their adoption has been slow in this population due to the complexity of post-liver transplant management.

Objective: This study aims to examine the use of eHealth technologies in supporting self-management for liver transplant recipients and identify their benefits and challenges to suggest areas for further research.

Methods: Following the Arksey and O'Malley methodology for scoping reviews, we conducted a systematic search of 5 electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We included studies that (1) examined or implemented eHealth-based self-management, (2) included liver transplant recipients aged ≥18 years, and (3) were published in a peer-reviewed journal. We excluded studies that (1) were case reports, conference abstracts, editorials, or letters; (2) did not focus on the posttransplantation phase; (3) did not focus on self-management; and (4) did not incorporate the concept of eHealth or used technology solely for data collection. The quality of the selected eHealth interventions was evaluated using (1) the Template for Intervention Description and Replication guidelines and checklist and (2) the 5 core self-management skills identified by Lorig and Holman.

Results: Of 1461 articles, 15 (1.03%) studies were included in the final analysis. Our findings indicate that eHealth-based self-management strategies for adult liver transplant recipients primarily address lifestyle management, medication adherence, and remote monitoring, highlighting a notable gap in alcohol relapse interventions. The studies used diverse technologies, including mobile apps, videoconferencing, and telehealth platforms, but showed limited integration of decision-making or resource use skills essential for comprehensive self-management. The reviewed studies highlighted the potential of eHealth in enhancing individualized health care, but only a few included collaborative features such as 2-way communication or tailored goal setting. While adherence and feasibility were generally high in many interventions, their effectiveness varied due to diverse methodologies and outcome measures.

Conclusions: This scoping review maps the current literature on eHealth-based self-management support for liver transplant recipients, assessing its potential and challenges. Future studies should focus on developing predictive models and personalized eHealth interventions rooted in patient-generated data, incorporating digital human-to-human interactions to effectively address the complex needs of liver transplant recipients. This review emphasizes the need for future eHealth self-management research to address the digital divide, especially with the aging liver transplant recipient population, and ensure more inclusive studies across diverse ethnicities and regions.

Keywords: digital health; eHealth; eHealth technology; liver disease; liver transplant; liver transplantation; mobile phone; review; scoping review; self-management; transplant management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart.

Similar articles

References

    1. Maynard E. Liver transplantation: patient selection, perioperative surgical issues, and expected outcomes. Surg Clin North Am. 2019 Feb;99(1):65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2018.09.005.S0039-6109(18)30128-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. National data. Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network. [2024-01-06]. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data .
    1. 2020 Organ transplant cohort KOTRY annual report. Korean Organ Transplantation Registry. 2022. Jan 05, [2024-01-06]. http://www.kotryfoundation.org/rang_board/list.html?num=176&code=mem_ref .
    1. Black CK, Termanini KM, Aguirre O, Hawksworth JS, Sosin M. Solid organ transplantation in the 21st century. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Oct;6(20):409. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.09.68. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30498736 atm-06-20-409 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim WR, Lake JR, Smith JM, Schladt DP, Skeans MA, Harper AM, Wainright JL, Snyder JJ, Israni AK, Kasiske BL. OPTN/SRTR 2016 annual data report: liver. Am J Transplant. 2018 Jan;18 Suppl 1:172–253. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14559. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1600-6135(22)09831-8 S1600-6135(22)09831-8 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources