Table 2.

Animation revisions based on patient input from patients, experts, and stakeholders^*.

Stakeholder feedback	Animation revision
Evaluation video Content confusing and too long. Lack of information about specific tests that need to be obtained, who schedules the appointments, what happens if the result of a test is problematic, and how the committee decision is conveyed to the patient. Recommended providing information about the transplant coordinator specialty [ ie, nurse] and that the candidate should bring a snack to the evaluation. Listing status content not relevant within the evaluation stage. (transplant providers) There should be an explanation that some test results lead to requirement for other tests. (dialysis staff).	Separated single long animation into 2 shorter animations. Added requirement for completion of routine surveillance studies as well as examples of common transplant-specific tests. Added that the transplant coordinator is a nurse. Added recommendation of bringing a snack to the evaluation. Separate video regarding listing. Added language about the potential need for further testing based on the results of prior tests.
Listing video Lacks clarity regarding when to call the coordinator and need for blood work while active status. Explanations of active and inactive status were confusing. (dialysis staff).	Multiple changes to script and scenes to clarify and improve comprehension.

^*Comments are from patients unless specifically (indicated).