Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26335985›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2016

What do we know about developing patient portals? a systematic literature review.

Terese Otte-Trojel, Antoinette de Bont, Thomas G Rundall, Joris van de Klundert

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Terese Otte-TrojelInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands ottetrojel@bmg.eur.nl ottetrojel@berkeley.edu.
Antoinette de BontInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas G RundallSchool of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Joris van de KlundertInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNumerous articles have reported on the development of patient portals, including development problems and solutions. We review these articles to inform future patient portal development efforts and to provide a summary of the evidence base that can guide future research. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a systematic review of relevant literature to answer 5 questions: (1) What categories of problems related to patient portal development have been defined? (2) What causal factors have been identified by problem analysis and diagnosis? (3) What solutions have been proposed to ameliorate these causal factors? (4) Which proposed solutions have been implemented and in which organizational contexts? (5) Have implemented solutions been evaluated and what learning has been generated? Through searches on PubMed, ScienceDirect and LISTA, we included 109 articles.

resultsWe identified 5 main problem categories: achieving patient engagement, provider engagement, appropriate data governance, security and interoperability, and a sustainable business model. Further, we identified key factors contributing to these problems as well as solutions proposed to ameliorate them. While about half (45) of the 109 articles proposed solutions, fewer than half of these solutions (18) were implemented, and even fewer (5) were evaluated to generate learning about their effects. DISCUSSION: Few studies systematically report on the patient portal development processes. As a result, the review does not provide an evidence base for portal development.

conclusionOur findings support a set of recommendations for advancement of the evidence base: future research should build on existing evidence, draw on principles from design sciences conveyed in the problem-solving cycle, and seek to produce evidence within various different organizational contexts.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalInternetElectronic Health RecordsHumansdesign and developmentdesign sciencespatient portalspersonal health recordssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26335985
PMCPMC4954617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.