Kidney Transplant Patients Welcome AI Support, but Many Still Depend on Paper Logs

Researchers surveyed 130 adults attending the University Hospital of Tübingen’s transplant centre between June 2023 and November 2024, including 82 kidney transplant recipients and 48 people awaiting transplantation.

Life after a kidney transplant involves far more than recovering from surgery, with daily medicines to prevent organ rejection, regular checks and an ongoing need to stay connected with healthcare teams. Digital tools could make that routine easier, and a German study suggests many patients welcome the idea, with clear expectations about keeping their doctors involved.

The study, "Readiness for remote healthcare and artificial intelligence in kidney transplant care: a cross-sectional study," published in Scientific Reports, explored patients' views on remote healthcare and artificial intelligence. Felix Eisinger and colleagues found considerable interest in digital services, limited use of several available tools and a strong preference for care that preserves human contact and medical responsibility.

Smartphones Are Everywhere, Paper Records Still Fill the Gap

Researchers surveyed 130 adults attending the University Hospital of Tübingen's transplant centre between June 2023 and November 2024, including 82 kidney transplant recipients and 48 people awaiting transplantation. Participants were around 53 years old on average, and 58.3% of the 223 patients invited completed the questionnaire.

Smartphone ownership reached 96.9%, and 93.8% owned a computer, giving most participants access to equipment that could support digital care. Wearable devices, such as watches that record health measurements, were used by 32.3%. Paper remained part of everyday health management for 57.4% of respondents who documented their measurements. Blood pressure and body weight were the most commonly recorded readings, followed by urine volume.

Experience with digital healthcare varied considerably: 60% had booked appointments online, 20% had used digital medication plans, 14.6% had attended video consultations and 12.3% had used healthcare messaging services. Owning a smartphone clearly did not mean these services had become part of someone's usual care.

Patients frequently searched online for information about illnesses, medication side effects, treatments and nutrition. Websites produced by medical professionals were the most frequently used source and received the strongest quality ratings.

Patients See Easier Access, Less Travel and Clear Privacy Boundaries

The appeal of digital care was closely tied to everyday convenience, with 89.8% expecting better access to their treatment teams, 82.8% anticipating lower travel costs and 74% expecting to save time. Online appointment booking received the strongest support, with 92.2% considering it useful. Sending medical findings digitally appealed to 87.4%, hospital apps to 86%, medical messaging to 77% and video consultations to 66.7%.

Optimism extended to the care itself: 81.7% expected digital technologies to improve treatment quality, and 79.4% expected a positive effect on the relationship with their doctor. These were patients' expectations, rather than benefits demonstrated by the survey.

Willingness to share health information depended on who would receive it. About 65% were prepared to send personal medical information digitally to treating doctors, compared with 47.3% who would share it with health insurers.

Privacy concerns were greatest for messaging services, at 45.3%, and lower for video consultations, email, hospital apps and appointment booking. The researchers suggested that trust, control over sensitive information and concerns about further uses of data could help explain people's preferences; the survey did not directly establish their reasons.

AI Gets a Supporting Role, Doctors Keep the Responsibility

Only 26.9% of participants had experience with AI tools such as ChatGPT, giving the findings useful context: many opinions concerned technology respondents had little direct experience of using. Almost 60% expected AI to improve treatment quality, and 58.3% thought it could help prevent medical errors. Its strongest perceived role was providing comprehensive information to support treatment, an ability recognised by 68.5%.

Confidence weakened around clinical judgement and human connection. Roughly half expressed doubts about AI's medical capabilities, and 61.2% questioned its social capabilities. Only 13.7% believed it could contribute to emotional care.

The preference for human professionals was particularly strong: 95.3% favoured personal care from medical staff, even in a hypothetical situation where AI could offer more objective analysis. Nearly 90% wanted doctors to retain overall responsibility.

Potential applications discussed in the paper include helping clinicians personalise medicines that prevent rejection, assess risks and predict problems with a transplanted kidney. These possibilities were not tested in this study, whose findings concern patient acceptance rather than AI's clinical performance.

Better Digital Care Starts With Helping People Use It

Digital confidence was uneven across the group, with 70.8% scoring in the low or medium range for eHealth literacy, meaning their perceived ability to find, understand and assess online health information. Older participants used paper records more frequently and were less willing to share health information digitally. Higher education and stronger digital health literacy were associated with greater acceptance of several technologies.

After accounting for age, sex, education and digital health literacy together, higher education remained associated with greater willingness to share data through a clinic app and better understanding of AI. Stronger digital health literacy was linked to acceptance of online communication, understanding AI and confidence in ChatGPT's ability to address health questions. Men reported greater trust in AI-generated treatment plans, and increasing age was associated with more concern about AI's empathy. These patterns describe the surveyed group and cannot determine an individual patient's preferences.

The researchers found no consistent differences between people awaiting transplantation and transplant recipients, or between recipients in earlier and later follow-up. Measured aspects of health-related quality of life showed no significant independent associations with the analysed digital health and AI outcomes.