Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25519769›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014

Which frail older patients use online health communities and why? A mixed methods process evaluation of use of the Health and Welfare portal.

Peter Makai, Marieke Perry, Sarah H M Robben, Henk Schers, Maud Heinen, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, René J F Melis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Patient Portal Use Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026
    Article
  4. More Older Adults Try Patient Portals in Recent Years, but Many Don't Continue: A Meta-Analysis.Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Use and the Users of a Patient Portal: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

7 authors.

Peter MakaiRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, Netherlands. Peter.Makai@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5332-1751

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrail older people often receive fragmented care from multiple providers. According to the literature, there is an urgent need for coordination of care. Online and eHealth tools are increasingly used to improve coordination. However, there are significant barriers to their implementation in frail older people.

objectiveOur aim was to (1) evaluate differences in use of a personal online health community (POHC) for frail older people in relation to personal characteristics, and (2) explore barriers and facilitators for use as experienced by older people and their informal caregivers, using the case of the Health and Welfare Information Portal (ZWIP).

methodsThis is a mixed methods study. For the quantitative analysis, we used POHC usage information (2 years follow-up) and baseline characteristics of frail older people. For the qualitative analysis, we used semistructured interviews with older people and their informal caregivers. Participants were recruited from 11 family practices in the east of the Netherlands and frail older people over 70 years. The ZWIP intervention is a personal online health community for frail older people, their informal caregivers, and their providers. ZWIP was developed at the Geriatrics Department of Radboud University Medical Center. We collected data on POHC use for 2 years as well as relevant patient characteristics. Interview topics were description of use, reasons for use and non-use, and user profiles.

resultsOf 622 frail patients in the intervention group, 290 were connected to ZWIP; 79 used ZWIP regularly (at least monthly). Main predictors for use were having an informal caregiver, having problems with activities of daily living, and having a large number of providers. Family practice level predictors were being located in a village, and whether the family practitioners had previously used electronic consultation and cared for a large percentage of frail older people. From 23 interviews, main reasons for use were perceiving ZWIP to be a good, quick, and easy way of communicating with providers and the presence of active health problems. Important reasons for non-use were lack of computer skills and preferring traditional means of consultation.

conclusionsOnly 27.2% (79/290) of frail older enrolled in the POHC intervention used the POHC frequently. For implementation of personal online health communities, older people with active health problems and a sizable number of health care providers should be targeted, and the informal caregiver, if present, should be involved in the implementation process.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 11165483; http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/pf/11165483 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6U3fZovoU).

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsFrail ElderlyHealth Records, PersonalActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversContinuity of Patient CareFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleNetherlandscare-coordinationchronic careeHealthfrail older people

Identifiers

PMID25519769
PMCPMC4275472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.