Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27223684›Full record

Trial reportHealth communication2017

Using Health Information Technology to Foster Engagement: Patients' Experiences with an Active Patient Health Record.

John J Rief, Megan E Hamm, Susan L Zickmund, Cara Nikolajski, Dan Lesky, Rachel Hess, Gary S Fischer, Melissa Weimer, Sunday Clark, Caroline Zieth and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health communication, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  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

11 authors.

John J Riefa Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies , Duquesne University.
Megan E Hammb Qualitative, Evaluation and Stakeholder Engagement Services, Center for Research on Health Care , University of Pittsburgh.
Susan L Zickmundc Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine , University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh.
Cara Nikolajskid Center for Research on Health Care , University of Pittsburgh.
Dan Leskye University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine , University of Pittsburgh.
Rachel Hessf Departments of Population Health Sciences and Internal Medicine , University of Utah.
Gary S Fischerg Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine , University of Pittsburgh.
Melissa Weimerd Center for Research on Health Care , University of Pittsburgh.
Sunday Clarkh Department of Emergency Medicine , Weill Cornell Medical College.
Caroline Ziethd Center for Research on Health Care , University of Pittsburgh.
Mark S Robertsg Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine , University of Pittsburgh.

Funding

The University of Pittsburgh Postdoctoral Program in Health Services ResearchT32HS017587 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KRAEMER, KEVIN L · 2008 to 2013
$1.2M
AHRQ HHS R18 HS018167AHRQ HHS T32 HS017587
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal health records (PHRs) typically employ "passive" communication strategies, such as non-personalized medical text, rather than direct patient engagement in care. Currently there is a call for more active PHRs that directly engage patients in an effort to improve their health by offering elements such as personalized medical information, health coaches, and secure messaging with primary care providers. As part of a randomized clinical trial comparing "passive" with "active" PHRs, we explore patients' experiences with using an "active" PHR known as HealthTrak. The "passive" elements of this PHR included problem lists, medication lists, information about patient allergies and immunizations, medical and surgical histories, lab test results, health reminders, and secure messaging. The active arm included all of these elements and added personalized alerts delivered through the secure messaging platform to patients for services coming due based on various demographic features (including age and sex) and chronic medical conditions. Our participants were part of the larger clinical trial and were eligible if they had been randomized to the active PHR arm, one that included regular personalized alerts. We conducted focus group discussions on the benefits of this active PHR for patients who are at risk for cardiovascular disease. Forty-one patients agreed to participate and were organized into five separate focus group sessions. Three main themes emerged from the qualitatively analyzed focus groups: participants reported that the active PHR promoted better communication with providers; enabled them to more effectively partner with their providers; and helped them become more proactive about tracking their health information. In conclusion, patients reported improved communication, partnership with their providers, and a sense of self-management, thus adding insights for PHR designers hoping to address low adoption rates and other patient barriers to the development and use of the technology.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseFemaleFocus GroupsHealth CommunicationHealth PersonnelHealth Records, PersonalHumansMaleMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27223684
PMCPMC10355811

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.