Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31322123›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Acute Care Patient Portal Intervention: Portal Use and Patient Activation.

Kumiko O Schnock, Julia E Snyder, Theresa E Fuller, Megan Duckworth, Maxwell Grant, Catherine Yoon, Stuart Lipsitz, Anuj K Dalal, David W Bates, Patricia C Dykes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. A novel approach to patient portal activation data to power equity improvements.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Validation of the PAM-13 instrument in the Hungarian general population 40 years old and above.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Kumiko O SchnockDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1107-6399
Julia E SnyderDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9478-7585
Theresa E FullerDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1358-854X
Megan DuckworthDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7661-2463
Maxwell GrantDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0027-2167
Catherine YoonDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7200-6845
Stuart LipsitzDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2619-1389
Anuj K DalalDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1431-2972
David W BatesDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6268-1540
Patricia C DykesDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4597-0732

Funding

Making Acute Care More Patient-CenteredP30HS023535 · AHRQ · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI BATES, DAVID W., MD,MSC · 2014 to 2017
$3.9M
AHRQ HHS P30 HS023535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-facing health information technology (HIT) tools, such as patient portals, are recognized as a potential mechanism to facilitate patient engagement and patient-centered care, yet the use of these tools remains limited in the hospital setting. Although research in this area is growing, it is unclear how the use of acute care patient portals might affect outcomes, such as patient activation.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe the use of an acute care patient portal and investigate its association with patient and care partner activation in the hospital setting.

methodsWe implemented an acute care patient portal on 6 acute care units over an 18-month period. We investigated the characteristics of the users (patients and their care partners) of the patient portal, as well as their use of the portal. This included the number of visits to each page, the number of days used, the length of the user's access period, and the average percent of days used during the access period. Patient and care partner activation was assessed using the short form of the patient activation measure (PAM-13) and the caregiver patient activation measure (CG-PAM). Comparisons of the activation scores were performed using propensity weighting and robust weighted linear regression.

resultsOf the 2974 randomly sampled patients, 59.01% (1755/2974) agreed to use the acute care patient portal. Acute care patient portal enrollees were younger, less sick, less likely to have Medicare as their insurer, and more likely to use the Partners Healthcare enterprise ambulatory patient portal (Patient Gateway). The most used features of the acute care patient portal were the laboratory test results, care team information, and medication list. Most users accessed the portal between 1 to 4 days during their hospitalization, and the average number of days used (logged in at least once per day) was 1.8 days. On average, users accessed the portal 42.69% of the hospital days during which it was available. There was significant association with patient activation on the neurology service (P<.001) and medicine service (P=.01), after the introduction of HIT tools and the acute care patient portal, but not on the oncology service.

conclusionsPortal users most often accessed the portal to view their clinical information, though portal usage was limited to only the first few days of enrollment. We found an association between the use of the portal and HIT tools with improved levels of patient activation. These tools may help facilitate patient engagement and improve outcomes when fully utilized by patients and care partners. Future study should leverage usage metrics to describe portal use and assess the impact of HIT tools on specific outcome measures in the hospital setting.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationPatient Portalsinpatientspatient activationpatient-centered carepatient participationpatient portals

Identifiers

PMID31322123
PMCPMC6670280

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.