Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233367›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2021

Patient Portals: Useful for Whom and for What? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of National Survey Data.

Christine M Swoboda, Matthew J DePuccio, Naleef Fareed, Ann Scheck McAlearney, Daniel M Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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.

Christine M SwobodaCATALYST-The Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Matthew J DePuccioCATALYST-The Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Naleef FareedCATALYST-The Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Ann Scheck McAlearneyCATALYST-The Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Daniel M WalkerCATALYST-The Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients who use patient portals may be more engaged and empowered in their care; however, differences in who accesses patient portals remain. The characteristics of who uses patient portals more frequently and who perceives them as useful may also differ, as well as which functions people use.

objectiveWe assessed the characteristics of patient portal users to examine who uses them more frequently and who perceives them as useful. In addition, we wanted to see if those who use them more frequently or perceive them to be more useful use different functions or more functions of patient portals.

methodsPooled cross-sectional data from 2017 to 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were used. Ordinal regression models were developed to assess frequency of use and perceived usefulness by demographics, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between the use of 10 patient portal functions and frequency of use and perceived usefulness of patient portals.

resultsThe odds of using patient portals more frequently were higher among those with Bachelor's degrees, incomes between $35,000 and $75,000, and those with two or more chronic conditions. Respondents with three or more chronic conditions had higher odds of rating patient portals as useful. Those who used their patient portal 10 or more times in the past year had higher odds of using all functions except for viewing test results compared with those who used their patient portal one to two times per year. Those who rated patient portals as "very useful" had higher odds of using seven of the functions compared with those who rated them "not very"/"not at all useful."

conclusionIt is important to continue to assess usefulness, frequency of use, and overall patient portal function use to identify opportunities to increase patient engagement with patient portals.

Indexed as

Patient PortalsChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPatient ParticipationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34233367
PMCPMC8263128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.