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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- AI-Powered Chatbot as a Health Literacy Tool for Enhancing Oral Cancer Awareness: Expert Feedback.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing the Implementation of a Multispecialty Virtual Ward Program in the United Kingdom: Qualitative Exploration of Staff Experiences and Perspectives.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patients' perspectives on digital health tools.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Patient Portals as Facilitators of Engagement in Patients With Diabetes and Chronic Heart Disease: Scoping Review of Usage and Usability.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- An empirical investigation into the preferences of the elderly for user interface design in personal electronic health record systems.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Demand preferences for health management services in a population of older adults with visual impairment in China: a conjoint analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Improvement and Evaluation of the TOPCOP Taxonomy of Patient Portals: Taxonomy-Evaluation-Delphi (TED) Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of a Useful Taxonomy of Patient Portals Based on Characteristics of Patient Engagement.Methods of information in medicine · 2021Article
- Needs and Requirements in the Designing of Mobile Interventions for Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: Questionnaire Study.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
- Using Patient and Family Engagement Strategies to Improve Outcomes of Health Information Technology Initiatives: Scoping Review.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.