Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33174851›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.

Marcy G Antonio, Olga Petrovskaya, Francis Lau

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 91 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Effects of an Online Patient Portal on Nurses' and the Health Care Team's Work in an Outpatient Oncology Setting: A Qualitative Study.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Accessing Patient Portals: Some Patients Want a Helping Hand.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026
    Article
  16. More Older Adults Try Patient Portals in Recent Years, but Many Don't Continue: A Meta-Analysis.Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marcy G Antonio *University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9332-8512
Olga PetrovskayaUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5929-3598
Francis LauUniversity of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7010-3281

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient portals have emerged as a recognized digital health strategy. To date, research on patient portals has grown rapidly. However, there has been limited evaluation of the growing body of evidence on portal availability, use, clinical or health behavior and outcomes, and portal adoption over time.

objectiveThis paper aims to comprehensively consolidate the current state of evidence on patient portals using the umbrella review methodology, introduce our approach for evaluating evidence for quantitative and qualitative findings presented in included systematic reviews, and present a knowledge translation tool that can be used to inform all stages of patient portal adoption.

methodsFor this study, a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review method was used. Multiple databases were searched for systematic reviews focused on patient portals, and the final sample included 14 reviews. We conducted a meta-level synthesis of findings from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods primary studies reported in systematic reviews. We organized the umbrella review findings according to the Clinical Adoption Meta-Model (CAMM). Vote-counting, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), and CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Review of Qualitative Research) were used to assess the umbrella review evidence.

resultsOur knowledge translation tool summarizes the findings in the form of an evidence map. Organized by the CAMM categories, the map describes the following factors that influence portal adoption and effects over time: patient contexts, patient's interest and satisfaction, portal design, facilitators and barriers, providers' attitudes, service utilization, behavioral effects, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. The map lists the theories and mechanisms recognized in the included portal research while identifying the need for business models and organizational theories that can inform all stages of portal adoption. Our GRADE and CERQual umbrella review evaluation resulted in the majority of evidence being rated as moderate to low, which reflects methodological issues in portal research, insufficient number of studies, or mixed results in specific focus areas. The 2 findings with a high rating of evidence were patients' interest in using portals for communication and the importance of a simple display of information in the portals. Over 40 portal features were identified in the umbrella review, with communication through secure messaging and appointment booking mentioned in all systematic reviews.

conclusionsOur umbrella review provides a meta-level synthesis to make sense of the evidence on patient portals from published systematic reviews. Unsystematic and variable reporting of portal features undermines the ability to evaluate and compare portal effects and overlooks the specific context of portal use. Research designs sensitive to the social, organizational, policy, and temporal dimensions are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and context that leverage the identified factors to improve portal use and effects.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeHumansPatient PortalsQualitative ResearchCERQualevidence-based practiceGRADEpatient portalspersonal health recordssystematic reviewsumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID33174851
PMCPMC7688386

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.