Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30463613›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018

How do patients value and prioritize patient portal functionalities and usage factors? A conjoint analysis study with chronically ill patients.

Gaby Anne Wildenbos, Frank Horenberg, Monique Jaspers, Linda Peute, Danielle Sent

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

5 authors.

Gaby Anne WildenbosCenter for Human Factors Engineering of Health Information Technology, Department of Medical Informatics, PO Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.a.wildenbos@amc.uva.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4197-5691
Frank HorenbergDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100, Meibergdreef 9 , DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique JaspersCenter for Human Factors Engineering of Health Information Technology, Department of Medical Informatics, PO Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Linda PeuteCenter for Human Factors Engineering of Health Information Technology, Department of Medical Informatics, PO Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Danielle SentDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100, Meibergdreef 9 , DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient portal use can be a stimulant for patient engagement. Yet, the heterogeneous landscape of tethered patient portals, is a major barrier to further portal development and implementation. A variety in portal access means, functionalities, usability and usefulness exists; without having accurate sight on patient perspectives. We aimed to get insights on possible coherence between patients' preferred usage factors of portals and patients' prioritization of functionalities, within the complexity of their disease management across different healthcare organizations.

methodsA conjoint analysis questionnaire was sent to patient panels of two large patient associations in The Netherlands, centered on heart and vascular diseases and lung diseases.

resultsOf 1294 patient respondents, 81% were 55+ years old and 49% were 65+ years old. Overall respondents significantly prioritized user-friendly access to a portal, via a laptop or desktop. Patients aged < 65 were less negative about using tablets to access a portal compared to the total respondents. Patients had no preference for a digital interoperable export functionality; most respondents preferred to create printable overviews. Built-in publication delay of two weeks for medical information was not preferred. Our results show no significant preference of patients between 'instant publication' versus 'publication after new information has been explained by a healthcare provider'. Overall respondents and experienced portal users had a strong preference to be able to communicate with their provider via a portal and to use a portal providing information from multiple providers. Lung patients preferred information from one provider and did not require the possibility to ask online questions.

conclusionsHeart and vascular patients as well as lung patients prefer similar technical patient portal aspects, independent of their medical condition. Yet, in current portals consistency on this matter is lacking. It is highly assumable that offering a more consistent user-experience across the variety of patient portals could help increase patient portal acceptance, ultimately helping to stimulate patient engagement via patient portal use. We further affirm the need for customization on medical information publication and sharing information of various providers through patient portals, where information provision can be adapted to preferences of patients related to their medical condition(s).

Indexed as

Chronic DiseasePatient PortalsPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsYoung AdultConjoint analysisElderlyPatient portalPatient preferencesTechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID30463613
PMCPMC6249922

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.