Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25669240›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2015

The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review.

Clemens Scott Kruse, Katy Bolton, Greg Freriks

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 210 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
210citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

210 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Adult patient access to electronic health records.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. What do we know about developing patient portals? a systematic literature review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. A randomized controlled trial to improve engagement of hospitalized patients with their patient portals.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

150 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Clemens Scott KruseCollege of Health Professions, School of Health Administration, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, United States. scottkruse@txstate.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7636-1086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act imposes pressure on health care organizations to qualify for "Meaningful Use". It is assumed that portals should increase patient participation in medical decisions, but whether or not the use of portals improves outcomes remains to be seen.

objectiveThe purpose of this systemic review is to outline and summarize study results on the effect of patient portals on quality, or chronic-condition outcomes as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and its implications to Meaningful Use since the beginning of 2011. This review updates and builds on the work by Ammenwerth, Schnell-Inderst, and Hoerbst.

methodsWe performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. We identified any data-driven study, quantitative or qualitative, that examined a relationship between patient portals, or patient portal features, and outcomes. We also wanted to relate the findings back to Meaningful Use criteria. Over 4000 articles were screened, and 27 were analyzed and summarized for this systematic review.

resultsWe identified 26 studies and 1 review, and we summarized their findings and applicability to our research question. Very few studies associated use of the patient portal, or its features, to improved outcomes; 37% (10/27) of papers reported improvements in medication adherence, disease awareness, self-management of disease, a decrease of office visits, an increase in preventative medicine, and an increase in extended office visits, at the patient's request for additional information. The results also show an increase in quality in terms of patient satisfaction and customer retention, but there are weak results on medical outcomes.

conclusionsThe results of this review demonstrate that more health care organizations today offer features of a patient portal than in the review published in 2011. Articles reviewed rarely analyzed a full patient portal but instead analyzed features of a portal such as secure messaging, as well as disease management and monitoring. The ability of patients to be able to view their health information electronically meets the intent of Meaningful Use, Stage 2 requirements, but the ability to transmit to a third party was not found in the review.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalMeaningful UseDisease ManagementElectronic Health RecordsHumansPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionTreatment OutcomeUnited Statesaccess to informationmeaningful usemedical record systems computerizedpatient participationpatient portalquality, outcomes

Identifiers

PMID25669240
PMCPMC4342639

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.