Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26755897›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in health information managemen2015

Diffusion and Use of Tethered Personal Health Records in Primary Care.

Taylor Pressler Vydra, Edward Cuaresma, Matthew Kretovics, Seuli Bose-Brill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in health information managemen, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Frontiers in reproductive health · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  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.

Taylor Pressler VydraAver Informatics Inc. in Columbus, OH.
Edward CuaresmaOhio State University College of Medicine in Columbus, OH.
Matthew KretovicsDivision of General Internal Medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, OH.
Seuli Bose-BrillDivision of General Internal Medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, OH.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonal health records (PHRs) enable patients to access their healthcare information in a secure environment, increasing patient engagement in medical care. PHRs can be tethered to a patient's electronic health record (EHR). Tethered PHRs, also known as patient portals, allow patients to access relevant medical information from their provider. Despite recent policy efforts to promote the use of health information technology and increased availability of PHRs in the clinical setting, PHR adoption rates remain relatively low overall. This article examines physician characteristics of high vs. low PHR adopters.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to (1) examine PHR use patterns in the primary care setting, (2) identify physician characteristics affecting PHR adoption, and (3) explore physician perspectives encouraging and deterring use.

methodsInformation technology records provided data on primary care patient portal use at a large Midwestern academic medical center. Electronic surveys were administered to affiliated primary care physicians to measure their perceived use of patient portals. A focus group consisting of physician providers who completed the survey was used to further elucidate the trends and perceived utilization of the patient portal in the clinical setting.

resultsWhile they expended significant time communicating with patients using the portal, physicians generally overestimated the time spent per week on the system. Physicians who had been in practice longer estimated a higher average time spent on the system when compared to newer physicians. Patient portal activation rates and use decreased with increased years in practice. During the focus groups, physicians voiced motivation to use patient portals because they perceived improved patient communication and satisfaction with use. However, continued lack of reimbursement for time spent in portal communication was reported as a major barrier to providers' engagement with this technology. DISCUSSION: Physician endorsement and engagement is critical to achieve widespread adoption of PHRs. Such endorsement can be obtained through (1) providing rewards from health system employers for high use of PHRs, (2) providing financial reimbursement for time spent electronically communicating with patients via the PHR from federal initiatives incentivizing meaningful use of health information technology, (3) building robust support staff assistance for PHR communication into primary care workflows, and (4) integrating more PHR-specific education into providers' EHR training.

Indexed as

Patient Access to RecordsAdultAgedCommunicationElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInservice TrainingInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'electronic health recordspatient portalspersonal health recordsprimary careprovider reimbursement

Identifiers

PMID26755897
PMCPMC4696089

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.