ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2018
Methods for Patient-Centered Interface Design of Test Result Display in Online Portals.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Experiences With Online Laboratory Test Presentations From Access to Activation: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Using Electronic Health Record Portals to Improve Patient Engagement: Research Priorities and Best Practices.Annals of internal medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Enhancing patient engagement and understanding: is providing direct access to laboratory results through patient portals adequate?JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Repeated Access to Patient Portal While Awaiting Test Results and Patient-Initiated Messaging.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Automated Reinforcement Management System (ARMS): focused phase I provider feedback.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2022Article
- User-Centered System Design for Communicating Clinical Laboratory Test Results: Design and Evaluation Study.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- User-centered design of a scalable, electronic health record-integrated remote symptom monitoring intervention for patients with asthma and providers in primary care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- The My Diabetes Care Patient Portal Intervention: Usability and Pre-Post Assessment.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Patient Challenges and Needs in Comprehending Laboratory Test Results: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Reference range number line format preferred by adults for display of asthma control status.The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma · 2020Article
- Helping Hispanic Family Caregivers of Persons With Dementia "Get the Picture" About Health Status Through Tailored Infographics.The Gerontologist · 2019Article
- Design and Comprehension Testing of Tailored Asthma Control Infographics for Adults with Persistent Asthma.Applied clinical informatics · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatients have unique information needs to help them interpret and make decisions about laboratory test results they receive on web-based portals. However, current portals are not designed in a patient-centered way and little is known on how best to harness patients' information needs to inform user-centered interface design of portals. We designed a patient-facing laboratory test result interface prototype based on requirement elicitation research and used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate this interface.
methodsAfter designing an initial test result display prototype, we used multiple evaluation methods, including focus group review sessions, expert consultation, and user testing, to make iterative design changes. For the user testing component, we recruited 14 patient-users to collect and analyze three types of data: comments made during testing sessions, responses to post-session questionnaires, and system usability scores.
resultsOur initial patient-centered interface design included visual ranges of laboratory values, nontechnical descriptions of the test and result, and access to features to help patients interpret and make decisions about their results. Findings from our evaluation resulted in 6 design iterations of the interface. Results from user testing indicate that the later versions of the interface fulfilled patient's information needs, were perceived as usable, and provided access to information and techniques that facilitated patient's ability to derive meaning from each test result.
conclusionsRequirement elicitation studies can inform the design of a patient-facing test result interface, but considerable user-centered design efforts are necessary to create an interface that patients find useful. To promote patient engagement, health information technology designers and developers can use similar approaches to enhance user-centered software design in patient portals.
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.