Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31855187›Full record

ReviewJMIR human factors2019

Using Patient Portals to Improve Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review.

Hae-Ra Han, Kelly T Gleason, Chun-An Sun, Hailey N Miller, Soo Jin Kang, Sotera Chow, Rachel Anderson, Paul Nagy, Tom Bauer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR human factors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

110 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Adult patient access to electronic health records.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Framing Effects in Youth E-Cigarette Use Prevention: Individual Text Messages Versus Simulated Text Exchanges.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2023
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Hae-Ra HanThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9419-594X
Kelly T GleasonThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4203-6517
Chun-An SunThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1759-3685
Hailey N MillerThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6045-6542
Soo Jin KangDaegu University, Department of Nursing, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2342-6309
Sotera ChowThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4487-0222
Rachel AndersonThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0929-5872
Paul NagyThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5108-7749
Tom BauerThe Johns Hopkins Hospitals and Health System, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3520-2676

Funding

Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR003099 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI GEBO, KELLY A · 2019 to 2023
$7.9M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR003099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the advent of electronic health record (EHR) systems, there is increasing attention on the EHR system with regard to its use in facilitating patients to play active roles in their care via secure patient portals. However, there is no systematic review to comprehensively address patient portal interventions and patient outcomes.

objectiveThis study aimed to synthesize evidence with regard to the characteristics and psychobehavioral and clinical outcomes of patient portal interventions.

methodsIn November 2018, we conducted searches in 3 electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and a total of 24 articles met the eligibility criteria.

resultsAll but 3 studies were conducted in the United States. The types of study designs varied, and samples predominantly involved non-Hispanic white and highly educated patients with sizes ranging from 50 to 22,703. Most of the portal interventions used tailored alerts or educational resources tailored to the patient's condition. Patient portal interventions lead to improvements in a wide range of psychobehavioral outcomes, such as health knowledge, self-efficacy, decision making, medication adherence, and preventive service use. Effects of patient portal interventions on clinical outcomes including blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and weight loss were mixed.

conclusionsPatient portal interventions were overall effective in improving a few psychological outcomes, medication adherence, and preventive service use. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of patient portals to improve clinical outcomes. Understanding the role of patient portals as an effective intervention strategy is an essential step to encourage patients to be actively engaged in their health care.

Indexed as

intervention studypatient portalsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31855187
PMCPMC6940868

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.