Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
The military health system's personal health record pilot with Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health.
Trial report in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A Technology Acceptance Model for Deploying Masks to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan (My Health Bank): Web-Based Cross-sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- A minimum data set of user profile or electronic health record for chemical warfare victims' recommender system.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Review
- CCR+: Metadata Based Extended Personal Health Record Data Model Interoperable with the ASTM CCR Standard.Healthcare informatics research · 2014Article
- Design of a Personal Health Record and Health Knowledge Sharing System using IHE-XDS and OWL.Journal of medical systems · 2013Article
- If we offer it, will they accept? Factors affecting patient use intentions of personal health records and secure messaging.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013Article
- A classification of errors in lay comprehension of medical documents.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2012Article
- Implementing an Interoperable Personal Health Record in Pediatrics: Lessons Learned at an Academic Children's Hospital.Journal of participatory medicine · 2011Article
- Sociotechnical Challenges of Developing an Interoperable Personal Health Record: Lessons Learned.Applied clinical informatics · 2011Article
- Article
- The challenges in making electronic health records accessible to patients.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo design, build, implement, and evaluate a personal health record (PHR), tethered to the Military Health System, that leverages Microsoft® HealthVault and Google® Health infrastructure based on user preference. MATERIALS AND
methodsA pilot project was conducted in 2008-2009 at Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, Washington. Our PHR was architected to a flexible platform that incorporated standards-based models of Continuity of Document and Continuity of Care Record to map Department of Defense-sourced health data, via a secure Veterans Administration data broker, to Microsoft® HealthVault and Google® Health based on user preference. The project design and implementation were guided by provider and patient advisory panels with formal user evaluation.
resultsThe pilot project included 250 beneficiary users. Approximately 73.2% of users were < 65 years of age, and 38.4% were female. Of the users, 169 (67.6%) selected Microsoft® HealthVault, and 81 (32.4%) selected Google® Health as their PHR of preference. Sample evaluation of users reflected 100% (n = 60) satisfied with convenience of record access and 91.7% (n = 55) satisfied with overall functionality of PHR. DISCUSSION: Key lessons learned related to data-transfer decisions (push vs pull), purposeful delays in reporting sensitive information, understanding and mapping PHR use and clinical workflow, and decisions on information patients may choose to share with their provider.
conclusionCurrently PHRs are being viewed as empowering tools for patient activation. Design and implementation issues (eg, technical, organizational, information security) are substantial and must be thoughtfully approached. Adopting standards into design can enhance the national goal of portability and interoperability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.