Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25326601›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015

Organizational strategies for promoting patient and provider uptake of personal health records.

Susan Wells, Ronen Rozenblum, Andrea Park, Marie Dunn, David W Bates

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02970461 (Gamifying Patient's Personal Data Validation and Completion in a Personal Health Record), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02970461 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Gamifying Patient's Personal Data Validation and Completion in a Personal Health Record

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Italiano de Buenos AiresRan2016 to 2016Enrolled40,000ConditionsChronic DiseaseArmsGamified Group, Control Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Personal Health Records: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pediatric patient portal use in one health system.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Susan WellsSection of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Department of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Health Care Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ronen RozenblumDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Andrea ParkDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Marie DunnDepartment of Health Care Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David W BatesDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Health Care Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate organizational strategies to promote personal health records (PHRs) adoption with a focus on patients with chronic disease.

methodsUsing semi-structured interviews and a web-based survey, we sampled US health delivery organizations which had implemented PHRs for at least 12 months, were recognized as PHR innovators, and had scored highly in national patient satisfaction surveys. Respondents had lead positions for clinical information systems or high-risk population management. Using grounded theory approach, thematic categories were derived from interviews and coupled with data from the survey.

resultsInterviews were conducted with 30 informants from 16 identified organizations. Organizational strategies were directed towards raising patient awareness via multimedia communications, and provider acceptance and uptake. Strategies for providers were grouped into six main themes: organizational vision, governance and policies, work process redesign, staff training, information technology (IT) support, and monitoring and incentives. Successful organizations actively communicated their vision, engaged leaders at all levels, had clear governance, planning, and protocols, set targets, and celebrated achievement. The most effective strategy for patient uptake was through health professional encouragement. No specific outreach efforts targeted patients with chronic disease. Registration and PHR activity was routinely measured but without reference to a denominator population or high risk subpopulations. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionSuccessful PHR implementation represents a social change and operational project catalyzed by a technical solution. The key to clinician acceptance is making their work easier. However, organizations will likely not achieve the value they want from PHRs unless they target specific populations and monitor their uptake.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalChronic DiseaseElectronic Health RecordsHumansInterviews as TopicOrganizational InnovationWorkflowadoptionchronic diseaseelectronic health recordspersonal health recordsquality

Identifiers

PMID25326601
PMCPMC4433381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.