Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28963090›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Evaluating Patient Empowerment in Association With eHealth Technology: Scoping Review.

Tracie Risling, Juan Martinez, Jeremy Young, Nancy Thorp-Froslie

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Adult patient access to electronic health records.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. The Effects of an Online Patient Portal on Nurses' and the Health Care Team's Work in an Outpatient Oncology Setting: A Qualitative Study.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 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.

Tracie Risling *College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4235-4785
Juan Martinez *College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0311-0024
Jeremy Young *College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9339-2119
Nancy Thorp-Froslie *College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4522-7797

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prioritization of sustainable patient-centered care in contemporary health care has resulted in an increased focus on patient empowerment, which in turn is considered to facilitate patient independence, self-management, and self-efficacy. However, a definitional consensus of empowerment remains elusive, impeding efforts to translate the conceptual ideals of empowerment into a measurable entity associated with changes in health care behavior or outcomes. The rapid integration of technology in health care serves to add another layer of complexity in the measurability and operationalization of empowerment and helps to create a specific context in which this conceptual entity should be further examined.

objectiveThe primary objective of this scoping review was to explore the concept of patient empowerment within the electronic health (eHealth) context. A further focus on the association or measurement of this concept in conjunction with tethered patient portal use was also employed.

methodsIn this scoping review, a six-step framework was used to guide the search and paper selection process. The review was initiated with two broad research questions, which are as follows: (1) What is the relationship between empowerment and the use of eHealth technologies from a patient perspective? (2) How is patient empowerment (and/or engagement or activation) influenced by accessing personal health information through a tethered patient portal? Multiple databases were employed in a comprehensive search strategy, and papers were primarily evaluated and selected for inclusion by 2 review authors, and a third author was consulted to resolve any issues in reaching consensus.

resultsFrom an initial count of 1387 publications, this review returned nine systematic or literature review papers and 19 empirical studies that pertained to patient empowerment (and/or engagement and activation) in relation to the use of tethered patient portals providing access to electronic health records (EHRs). Of the 19 empirical publications, only four were found to have used specific patient empowerment measures with significant variety in their identified conceptual elements.

conclusionsThere is a persistent lack of conceptual clarity in patient empowerment research, and this has extended to study within the eHealth context. The interchangeable use or conflation of terms such as patient empowerment, engagement, and activation, has further complicated the advancement of distinct conceptual measures. To more strongly align changes in patient empowerment with supportive eHealth solutions, the challenges of achieving a consensus on how best to operationalize and measure patient empowerment must be met.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyHumansPatient ParticipationPower, PsychologicalTelemedicineeHealthmeasurepatient activationpatient empowermentpatient engagementreview

Identifiers

PMID28963090
PMCPMC5640823

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.