BACKGROUND: People with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) are less likely to benefit from eHealth interventions, exacerbating social health inequalities. Professionals developing eHealth interventions for this group face numerous challenges. A comprehensive guide to support these professionals in their work could mitigate these inequalities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a web-based guide to support professionals in the development, adaptation, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP. METHODS: This study consisted of 2 phases. The first phase involved a secondary analysis of 2 previous qualitative and quantitative studies. In this phase, we synthesized insights from the previous studies to develop the guide's content and information structure. In the second phase, we used a participatory design process. This process included iterative development and evaluation of the guide's design with 11 professionals who had experience with both eHealth and the target group. We used test versions (prototypes) and think-aloud testing combined with semistructured interviews and a questionnaire to identify design requirements and develop and adapt the guide accordingly. RESULTS: The secondary analysis resulted in a framework of recommendations for developing the guide, which was categorized under 5 themes: development, reach, adherence, evaluation, and implementation. The participatory design process resulted in 16 requirements on system, content, and service aspects for the design of the guide. For the system category, the guide was required to have an open navigation strategy leading to more specific information and short pages with visual elements. Content requirements included providing comprehensible information, scientific evidence, a user perspective, information on practical applications, and a personal and informal tone of voice. Service requirements involved improving suitability for different professionals, ensuring long-term viability, and a focus on implementation. Based on these requirements, we developed the final version of "the inclusive eHealth guide." CONCLUSIONS: The inclusive eHealth guide provides a practical, user-centric tool for professionals aiming to develop, adapt, evaluate, and implement eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP, with the aim of reducing health disparities in this population. Future research should investigate its suitability for different end-user goals, its external validity, its applicability in specific contexts, and its real-world impact on social health inequality.

Rationale & Objective: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, including kidney transplant recipients, often experience difficulties regarding self-management. An important barrier for adherence to self-management recommendations may be the presence of psychological distress, consisting of depressive and anxiety symptoms. We investigated relationships between psychological distress and adherence to self-management recommendations. Study Design: Cross-sectional online questionnaire data as part of the E-GOAL study. Setting & Participants: Patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 20-89 mL/min/1.73 m²) were recruited from April 2018 to October 2020 at 4 hospitals in The Netherlands and completed online screening questionnaires. Exposures: Psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Outcomes: Dietary adherence, physical activity, medication adherence, smoking, body mass index, and a CKD self-management index (ie, the sum of 5 binary indicators of nonadherence to the recommended self-management factors). Analytical Approach: Adjusted multivariable regression and ordinal logistic regression analyses. Results: In our sample (N = 460), 27.2% of patients reported psychological distress, and 69.8% were nonadherent to 1 or more recommendations. Higher psychological distress was significantly associated with poorer dietary adherence (β^adj, −0.13; 95% CI, −0.23 to −0.04), less physical activity (β^adj, −0.13; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.03), and lower medication adherence (β^adj, −0.15; 95% CI, −0.24 to −0.05), but not with smoking and body mass index. Findings were similar for depressive symptoms, whereas anxiety was only associated with poorer dietary and medication adherence. Every 1-point higher psychological distress was also associated with a higher likelihood of being nonadherent to an accumulating number of different recommendations (adjusted OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Limitations: Cross-sectional design, possible residual confounding, and self-report. Conclusions: Many people with CKD experience psychological distress, of whom most have difficulties self-managing their CKD. Given the relationship between psychological distress and adherence to CKD self-management recommendations, behavioral interventions are needed to identify and treat psychological distress as a potential barrier to CKD self-management. Plain-Language Summary: This online questionnaire study investigated relationships between psychological distress and self-management among 460 people with chronic kidney disease. Over a quarter of them reported mild-to-severe psychological distress. Alarmingly, 4 out of 5 patients with psychological distress were also nonadherent to 1 or more self-management recommendations, and higher levels of psychological distress were associated with poorer dietary and medication adherence and lower physical activity. Moreover, patients who suffered from moderate-to-severe distress were relatively more often nonadherent to 3 or more recommendations compared with patients with no or mild distress symptoms. So, it seems that psychological distress can be a barrier for self-management. To support patients in managing chronic kidney disease, researchers and health professionals should not overlook patients’ mental health.

Background: Dialysis patients are confronted with numerous, complex problems, which make it difficult to identify individual patient's most prominent problems. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify dialysis patients' most prominent problems from a patient perspective and (2) to calculate disease-specific norms for questionnaires measuring these problems. Methods: One hundred seventy-five patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis completed a priority list on several domains of functioning (e.g., physical health, mental health, social functioning, and daily activities) and a set of matching questionnaires assessing patient functioning on these domains. Patient priorities were assessed by calculating the importance ranking of each domain on the priority list. Subsequently, disease-specific norm scores were calculated for all questionnaires, both for the overall sample and stratified by patient characteristics. Results: Fatigue was listed as patients' most prominent problem. Priorities differed between male and female patients, younger and older patients, and home and center dialysis patients, which was also reflected in their scores on the corresponding domains of functioning. Therefore, next to general norm scores, we calculated corrections to the general norms to take account of patient characteristics (i.e., sex, age, and dialysis type). Conclusions: Results highlight the importance of having attention for the specific priorities and needs of each individual patient. Adequate disease-specific, norm-based assessment is not only necessary for diagnostic procedures but is an essential element of patient-centered care: It will help to better understand and respect individual patient needs and tailor treatment accordingly.

Background: Limited data exist on the impact of living kidney donation on the donor-recipient relationship. Purpose of this study was to explore motivations to donate or accept a (living donor) kidney, whether expected relationship changes influence decision making and whether relationship changes are actually experienced. Methods. We conducted 6 focus groups in 47 of 114 invited individuals (41%), asking retrospectively about motivations and decision making around transplantation. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the focus group transcripts. Results: Most deceased donor kidney recipients had a potential living donor available which they refused or did not want. They mostly waited for a deceased donor because of concern for the donors health (75%). They more often expected negative relationship changes than living donor kidney recipients (75% vs. 27%, p=0.01) who also expected positive changes. Living donor kidney recipients mostly accepted the kidney to improve their own quality of life (47%). Donors mostly donated a kidney because transplantation would make the recipient less dependent (25%). After transplantation both positive and negative relationship changes are experienced. Conclusion: Expected relationship changes and concerns about the donors health lead some kidney patients to wait for a deceased donor, despite having a potential living donor available. Further research is needed to assess whether this concerns a selected group.