Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31296210›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Developing a patient portal for haematology patients requires involvement of all stakeholders and a customised design, tailored to the individual needs.

Paul A F Geerts, Trudy van der Weijden, Pien G M Loeffen, Lise E F Janssen, Celine Almekinders, Tobias A Wienhold, Gerard M J Bos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Design and evaluation patient portal for patients with HTLV-1.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul A F GeertsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Haematology, School GROW, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. paul.geerts@mumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1737-7133
Trudy van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, School CAPHRI, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Pien G M LoeffenFaculty of Health and Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Lise E F JanssenFaculty of Health and Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Celine AlmekindersFaculty of Health and Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tobias A WienholdFaculty of Health and Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Gerard M J BosDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Haematology, School GROW, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic patient portals are increasingly being implemented, also in (haemato) oncology. However, portal usage is low and depends on user and provider engagement. We explored wishes, expectations and thoughts of patients with a haematologic malignancy and their physicians with regard to the electronic patient portal.

methodsBased on insights from literature and a focus group discussion we built a 44-item questionnaire. This questionnaire was spread amongst patients with a haematologic malignancy at the outpatient clinic that was not yet exposed to patient portal facilities. Haematologists completed a questionnaire based on literature.

resultsPatients were interested in many different types of access to information and portal functionalities. However, their opinions varied about the provision of access to the portal to other people, the role of the physician, possibilities for communication via the portal and timing of access. The physicians acknowledged the relevance of the electronic patient portal, but had some worries about the patients' autonomous information handling, organizational and technical issues. Patients frequently expressed to be open about the potential of the patient portal to orchestrate their care. Nevertheless, most physicians appreciated their supporting role towards the patient.

conclusionsPatients and physicians appreciated the electronic patient portal. Both groups need to be involved in further portal development to improve engagement by meeting patients' wishes, taking into account organizational and professional issues and managing expectations for both parties. To fit various patient profiles, portal design should be flexible and individualized. Further research should focus on the perceived added value and the impact on patient related outcome measures of portals.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHematologyMedical OncologyPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient PortalsPhysiciansStakeholder ParticipationAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedHaematologic neoplasmsHaematologyNeoplasmsPatient portalsTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID31296210
PMCPMC6625061
OpenAlexW2960139210

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.