ArticleJMIR medical informatics2017
Characteristics of Innovators Adopting a National Personal Health Record in Portugal: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Impact of Digital Patient Portals on Health Outcomes, System Efficiency, and Patient Attitudes: Updated Systematic Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Patient Health Record Smart Network Challenges and Trends for a Smarter World.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Patients Managing Their Medical Data in Personal Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Early Adopters of Apple Health Records at a Large Academic Medical Center: Cross-sectional Survey of Users.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Exploring the COVID-19 Pandemic as a Catalyst for Behavior Change Among Patient Health Record App Users in Taiwan: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Patients' Perspectives About Factors Affecting Their Use of Electronic Personal Health Records in England: Qualitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Patients' Adoption of Electronic Personal Health Records in England: Secondary Data Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Adoption and Performance of Complementary Clinical Information Technologies: Analysis of a Survey of General Practitioners.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Factors Affecting Patients' Use of Electronic Personal Health Records in England: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonal health records (PHRs) are increasingly being deployed worldwide, but their rates of adoption by patients vary widely across countries and health systems. Five main categories of adopters are usually considered when evaluating the diffusion of innovations: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate adoption of the Portuguese PHR 3 months after its release, as well as characterize the individuals who registered and used the system during that period (the innovators).
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study. Users and nonusers were defined based on their input, or not, of health-related information into the PHR. Users of the PHR were compared with nonusers regarding demographic and clinical variables. Users were further characterized according to their intensity of information input: single input (one single piece of health-related information recorded) and multiple inputs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of being in the multiple inputs group. ArcGis (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA) was used to create maps of the proportion of PHR registrations by region and district.
resultsThe number of registered individuals was 109,619 (66,408/109,619, 60.58% women; mean age: 44.7 years, standard deviation [SD] 18.1 years). The highest proportion of registrations was observed for those aged between 30 and 39 years (25,810/109,619, 23.55%). Furthermore, 16.88% (18,504/109,619) of registered individuals were considered users and 83.12% (91,115/109,619) nonusers. Among PHR users, 32.18% (5955/18,504) engaged in single input and 67.82% (12,549/18,504) in multiple inputs. Younger individuals and male users had higher odds of engaging in multiple inputs (odds ratio for male individuals 1.32, CI 1.19-1.48). Geographic analysis revealed higher proportions of PHR adoption in urban centers when compared with rural noncoastal districts.
conclusionsApproximately 1% of the country's population registered during the first 3 months of the Portuguese PHR. Registered individuals were more frequently female aged between 30 and 39 years. There is evidence of a geographic gap in the adoption of the Portuguese PHR, with higher proportions of adopters in urban centers than in rural noncoastal districts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.