Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33629962›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021

Quantifying Patient Portal Use: Systematic Review of Utilization Metrics.

Lauren L Beal, Jacob M Kolman, Stephen L Jones, Aroub Khleif, Terri Menser

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. A system-wide approach to digital equity: the Digital Access Coordinator program in primary care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Use of the patient portal among older adults with diagnosed dementia and their care partners.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Observational
  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

5 authors.

Lauren L BealCenter for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9440-4430
Jacob M KolmanCenter for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3205-1462
Stephen L JonesCenter for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1106-171X
Aroub KhleifAmbulatory Clinical Systems, Information Technology Division, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4388-3328
Terri Menser *Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3095-2590

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of patient portals has been associated with positive outcomes in patient engagement and satisfaction. Portal studies have also connected portal use, as well as the nature of users' interactions with portals, and the contents of their generated data to meaningful cost and quality outcomes. Incentive programs in the United States have encouraged uptake of health information technology, including patient portals, by setting standards for meaningful use of such technology. However, despite widespread interest in patient portal use and adoption, studies on patient portals differ in actual metrics used to operationalize and track utilization, leading to unsystematic and incommensurable characterizations of use. No known review has systematically assessed the measurements used to investigate patient portal utilization.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to apply systematic review criteria to identify and compare methods for quantifying and reporting patient portal use.

methodsOriginal studies with quantifiable metrics of portal use published in English between 2014 and the search date of October 17, 2018, were obtained from PubMed using the Medical Subject Heading term "Patient Portals" and related keyword searches. The first search round included full text review of all results to confirm a priori data charting elements of interest and suggest additional categories inductively; this round was supplemented by the retrieval of works cited in systematic reviews (based on title screening of all citations). An additional search round included broader keywords identified during the full-text review of the first round. Second round results were screened at abstract level for inclusion and confirmed by at least two raters. Included studies were analyzed for metrics related to basic use/adoption, frequency of use, duration metrics, intensity of use, and stratification of users into "super user" or high utilizers. Additional categories related to provider (including care team/administrative) use of the portal were identified inductively. Additional analyses included metrics aligned with meaningful use stage 2 (MU-2) categories employed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the association between the number of portal metrics examined and the number of citations and the journal impact factor.

resultsOf 315 distinct search results, 87 met the inclusion criteria. Of the a priori metrics, plus provider use, most studies included either three (26 studies, 30%) or four (23 studies, 26%) metrics. Nine studies (10%) only reported the patient use/adoption metric and only one study (1%) reported all six metrics. Of the US-based studies (n=76), 18 (24%) were explicitly motivated by MU-2 compliance; 40 studies (53%) at least mentioned these incentives, but only 6 studies (8%) presented metrics from which compliance rates could be inferred. Finally, the number of metrics examined was not associated with either the number of citations or the publishing journal's impact factor.

conclusionsPortal utilization measures in the research literature can fall below established standards for "meaningful" or they can substantively exceed those standards in the type and number of utilization properties measured. Understanding how patient portal use has been defined and operationalized may encourage more consistent, well-defined, and perhaps more meaningful standards for utilization, informing future portal development.

Indexed as

HumansPatient ParticipationPatient PortalsUtilization ReviewAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment ActHealth Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Actmeaningful usepatient-generated health datapatient portalsportalportal utilizationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33629962
PMCPMC7952240

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.