Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27337092›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Direct Release of Test Results to Patients Increases Patient Engagement and Utilization of Care.

Francesca Pillemer, Rebecca Anhang Price, Suzanne Paone, G Daniel Martich, Steve Albert, Leila Haidari, Glenn Updike, Robert Rudin, Darren Liu, Ateev Mehrotra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 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

10 authors.

Francesca PillemerRAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, and Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Rebecca Anhang PriceRAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, and Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Suzanne PaoneUPMC Health System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
G Daniel MartichUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Steve AlbertUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Leila HaidariUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Glenn UpdikeUPMC Health System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Robert RudinRAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, and Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Darren LiuUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States of America.
Ateev MehrotraRAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, and Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

VARIABILITY, STABILITY & SMOOTHNESS OF WALKINGP30AG024827 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JENNIFER S BRACH · 2004 to 2026
$28.6M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An important focus for meaningful use criteria is to engage patients in their care by allowing them online access to their health information, including test results. There has been little evaluation of such initiatives. Using a mixed methods analysis of electronic health record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews, we examined the impact of allowing patients to view their test results via patient portal in one large health system. Quantitative data were collected for new users and all users of the patient portal. Qualitative interviews occurred with patients who had received an HbA1c or abnormal Pap result. Survey participants were active patient portal users. Our main measures were patient portal usage, factors associated with viewing test results and utilizing care, and patient and provider experiences with patient portal and direct release. Usage data show 80% of all patient portal users viewed test results during the year. Of survey respondents, 82.7% noted test results to be a very useful feature and 70% agreed that patient portal has made their provider more accessible to them. Interviewed patients reported feeling they should have direct access to test results and identified the ability to monitor results over time and prepare prior to communicating with a provider as benefits. In interviews, both patients and physicians reported instances of test results leading to unnecessary patient anxiety. Both groups noted the benefits of results released with provider interpretation. Quantitative data showed patient utilization to increase with viewing test results online, but this effect is mitigated when results are manually released by physicians. Our findings demonstrate that patient portal access to test results was highly valued by patients and appeared to increase patient engagement. However, it may lead to patient anxiety and increase rates of patient visits. We discuss how such unintended consequences can be addressed and larger implications for meaningful use criteria.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Access to RecordsTruth DisclosureAccess to InformationAdultAgedFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID27337092
PMCPMC4919031

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.