ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
Communicating laboratory results through a Web site: Patients' priorities and viewpoints.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to "My mom got diagnosed with cancer through the MyChart app".Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- The role of patient portals in enhancing self-care in patients with renal conditions.Clinical kidney journal · 2020Review
- Communicating laboratory results through a Web site: Patients' priorities and viewpoints.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients can access laboratory results using various technologies. The aim of this study was to integrate the laboratory results into the hospital Web site based on patients' viewpoints and priorities and to measure patients' satisfaction.
methodsThis descriptive-analytical study was conducted in 2015. First, a questionnaire was distributed among 200 patients to assess patients' priorities to receive laboratory results through the Web site. Second, those who agreed (n = 95) to receive their laboratory results through the Web site were identified. Then, the required changes were made to the hospital Web site based on patients' viewpoints and priorities. Third, patients were divided into two groups. The first group received their laboratory results through the Web site on the date had been announced during their visit to the laboratory. The second group was informed by SMS once their results were shown on the Web site. After receiving laboratory results, patients' satisfaction was evaluated.
resultsMore than half of the participants (n = 53, 55.8%) were highly satisfied with receiving the results electronically. The higher number of people in SMS group (n = 9, 20.9%) reported that they were satisfied with time-saving compared to other group (n = 2, 3.8%) (P = .04). Participants after receiving the results through the Web site considered the functionalities of reprinting (P < .0001) and timeliness (P = .017) more important.
conclusionIntegrating laboratory results into the hospital Web site based on the patients' viewpoints and priorities can improve patient satisfaction and lower the patients' concern regarding confidentiality of their results.
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.