ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Personal Health Information Management Among Older Adults: Scoping Review.
Article 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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Publications on Health Information Management Using the Science Mapping Method: A Holistic Perspective.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Description of Personal Health Information Management Work With a Spotlight on the Practices of Older Adults: Qualitative e-Delphi Study With Professional Organizers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults face growing health care needs and could potentially benefit from personal health information management (PHIM) and PHIM technology. To ensure effective PHIM and to provide supportive tools, it is crucial to investigate the needs, challenges, processes, and tools used by this subpopulation. The literature on PHIM by older adults, however, remains scattered and has not provided a clear picture of what we know about the elements that play a role in older adults' PHIM.
objectiveThe goal of our review was to provide a comprehensive overview of extant knowledge on PHIM by older adults, establish the status quo of research on this topic, and identify research gaps.
methodsWe carried out a scoping review of the literature from 1998 to 2020, which followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework. First, we executed a broad and structured search. We then carried out a qualitative analysis of papers pertinent to the topic taking into consideration the five elements of the patient work system as follows: (1) personal-level factors, (2) PHIM tasks, (3) tools used, (4) physical settings of PHIM activities, and (5) socio-organizational aspects.
resultsThe review included 22 studies. Consolidated empirical evidence was related to all elements of the patient work system. Multiple personal factors affected PHIM. Various types of personal health information were managed (clinical, patient-generated, and general) and tools were used (electronic, paper-based, and others). Older adults' PHIM was intertwined with their surroundings, and various individuals participated. The largest body of evidence concerned personal factors, while findings regarding the physical environment of PHIM were scarce. Most research has thus far examined older adults as a single group, and scant attention has been paid to age subgroups.
conclusionsOpportunities for further PHIM studies remain across all elements of the patient work system in terms of empirical, design science, or review work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.