Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35698220›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Usability and perceived usefulness of patient-centered medication reconciliation using a personalized health record: a multicenter cross-sectional study.

Denise J van der Nat, Victor J B Huiskes, Margot Taks, Bart P H Pouls, Bart J F van den Bemt, Hein A W van Onzenoort

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Denise J van der NatDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands.
Victor J B HuiskesDepartment of Pharmacy, St. Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Margot TaksDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands.
Bart P H PoulsDepartment of Pharmacy, St. Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Bart J F van den BemtDepartment of Pharmacy, St. Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Hein A W van OnzenoortDepartment of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Hein.vanOnzenoort@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdoption of a personal health record (PHR) depends on its usability and perceived usefulness. Therefore, we aimed to assess the usability and perceived usefulness of an online PHR used for medication reconciliation and to assess the association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness at both the in- and outpatient clinics.

methodsA multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted with patients with either an outpatient visit (rheumatology ward) or planned admission in the hospital (cardiology, neurology, internal medicine or pulmonary wards). All patients received an invitation to update their medication list in the PHR 2 weeks prior to their appointment. One month after the hospital visit, PHR-users were asked to rate usability (using the System Usability Scale (SUS)) and perceived usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale. The usability and perceived usefulness were classified according to the adjective rating scale of Bangor et al. The usability was furthermore dichotomized in the categories: low (SUS between 0 and 51) and good (SUS 51-100) usability. Associations between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness were analysed.

results255 of the 743 invited PHR-users completed the questionnaire. 78% inpatients and 83% outpatients indicated that usability of the PHR was good. There were no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability of the PHR. The majority of the patients (57% inpatients and 67% outpatients) classified perceived usefulness of the PHR as good, excellent, or best imaginable. Outpatients who also used the PHR for other drug related purposes reported a higher perceived usefulness (adjusted odds ratio 20.0; 95% confidence interval 2.36-170). Besides that, there was no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the perceived usefulness of the PHR.

conclusionsThe majority of the patients indicated that the PHR for medication reconciliation was useful and easy to use, but there is still room for improvement. To improve the intervention, further research should explore patients' barriers and facilitators of using a PHR for medication reconciliation.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalMedication ReconciliationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPatient-Centered CareMedication reconciliationPerceived usefulnessPersonal health recordTechnology acceptance modelUsability

Identifiers

PMID35698220
PMCPMC9195254

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.