Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36939703›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Perspectives of Patients About Immediate Access to Test Results Through an Online Patient Portal.

Bryan D Steitz, Robert W Turer, Chen-Tan Lin, Scott MacDonald, Liz Salmi, Adam Wright, Christoph U Lehmann, Karen Langford, Samuel A McDonald, Thomas J Reese and 4 more

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

14 authors.

Bryan D SteitzDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Robert W TurerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Chen-Tan LinDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Scott MacDonaldDepartment of Clinical Informatics, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento.
Liz SalmiDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Adam WrightDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Christoph U LehmannClinical Informatics Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Karen LangfordDepartment of Insights and Operations, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Samuel A McDonaldDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Thomas J ReeseDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Paul SternbergDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Qingxia ChenDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
S Trent RosenbloomDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Catherine M DesRochesDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

UT Southwestern Center for Translational MedicineUL1TR003163 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2021 to 2025
$39.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule mandates the immediate electronic availability of test results to patients, likely empowering them to better manage their health. Concerns remain about unintended effects of releasing abnormal test results to patients. Objective: To assess patient and caregiver attitudes and preferences related to receiving immediately released test results through an online patient portal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This large, multisite survey study was conducted at 4 geographically distributed academic medical centers in the US using an instrument adapted from validated surveys. The survey was delivered in May 2022 to adult patients and care partners who had accessed test results via an online patient portal account between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022. Exposures: Access to test results via a patient portal between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Responses to questions related to demographics, test type and result, reaction to result, notification experience and future preferences, and effect on health and well-being were aggregated. To evaluate characteristics associated with patient worry, logistic regression and pooled random-effects models were used to assess level of worry as a function of whether test results were perceived by patients as normal or not normal and whether patients were precounseled. Results: Of 43 380 surveys delivered, there were 8139 respondents (18.8%). Most respondents were female (5129 [63.0%]) and spoke English as their primary language (7690 [94.5%]). The median age was 64 years (IQR, 50-72 years). Most respondents (7520 of 7859 [95.7%]), including 2337 of 2453 individuals (95.3%) who received nonnormal results, preferred to immediately receive test results through the portal. Few respondents (411 of 5473 [7.5%]) reported that reviewing results before they were contacted by a health care practitioner increased worry, though increased worry was more common among respondents who received abnormal results (403 of 2442 [16.5%]) than those whose results were normal (294 of 5918 [5.0%]). The result of the pooled model for worry as a function of test result normality was statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 2.71; 99% CI, 1.96-3.74), suggesting an association between worry and nonnormal results. The result of the pooled model evaluating the association between worry and precounseling was not significant (OR, 0.70; 99% CI, 0.31-1.59). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multisite survey study of patient attitudes and preferences toward receiving immediately released test results via a patient portal, most respondents preferred to receive test results via the patient portal despite viewing results prior to discussion with a health care professional. This preference persisted among patients with nonnormal results.

Indexed as

Patient PortalsAcademic Medical CentersAdultAttitudeDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36939703
PMCPMC10028486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read61
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.