Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27720139›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2017

Patient portals and health apps: Pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other.

Jessica L Baldwin, Hardeep Singh, Dean F Sittig, Traber Davis Giardina

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01710293 (Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 82 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
31.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT01710293 nawithdrawnnot on this map

Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2017 to 2017Enrolled0ConditionsLung Cancer, Bladder Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Hepatocellular CarcinomaArmsCommunication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 201 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Criteria for assessing the quality of mHealth apps: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica L BaldwinHouston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA; Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: jessica.baldwin@bcm.edu.
Hardeep SinghHouston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA; Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Dean F SittigSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Traber Davis GiardinaHouston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA; Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Baylor College of Medicine · USCenter for Innovation · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS022087AHRQ HHS R21 HS023602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Widespread use of health information technology (IT) could potentially increase patients' access to their health information and facilitate future goals of advancing patient-centered care. Despite having increased access to their health data, patients do not always understand this information or its implications, and digital health data can be difficult to navigate when displayed in a small-format, complex interface. In this paper, we discuss two forms of patient-facing health IT tools-patient portals and applications (apps)-and highlight how, despite several limitations of each, combining high-yield features of mobile health (mHealth) apps with portals could increase patient engagement and self-management and be more effective than either of them alone. Patient portal adoption is variable, and due to design and interface limitations and health literacy issues, many people find the portal difficult to use. Conversely, apps have experienced rapid adoption and traditionally have more consumer-friendly features with easy log-in access, real-time tracking, and simplified data display. These features make the applications more intuitive and easy-to-use than patient portals. While apps have their own limitations and might serve different purposes, patient portals could adopt some high-yield features and functions of apps that lead to engagement success with patients. We thus suggest that to improve user experience with future portals, developers could look towards mHealth apps in design, function, and user interface. Adding new features to portals may improve their use and empower patients to track their overall health and disease states. Nevertheless, both these health IT tools should be subjected to rigorous evaluation to ensure they meet their potential in improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Computer LiteracyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansInternetMobile ApplicationsPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationPatient Portals

Identifiers

PMID27720139
PMCPMC8386919
OpenAlexW2529735886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.