Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37234031›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2023

Patient Perceptions of e-Visits: Qualitative Study of Older Adults to Inform Health System Implementation.

Timothy J Judson, Meera Subash, James D Harrison, Jan Yeager, Aimée M Williams, Carrie K Grouse, Maria Byron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Patient Portal Use Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. National trends in oncology specialists' EHR inbox work, 2019-2022.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Timothy J Judson *Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8376-6260
Meera Subash *Houston School of Biomedical Informatics, UTHealth, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9675-301X
James D HarrisonDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7761-7039
Jan YeagerClinical Innovation Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8401-3592
Aimée M WilliamsClinical Innovation Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2839-7888
Carrie K GrouseDepartment of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8875-535X
Maria ByronDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9371-0970

Funding

Institutional Career Development Core SupplementKL2TR001870 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KANAYA, ALKA M., SARKAR, URMIMALA · 2016 to 2025
$19.7M
Placing patient preferences at the center of care plans for older adults transitioning from the hospital to a skilled nursing facilityK01AG073533 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HARRISON, JAMES DAVID · 2021 to 2025
$660k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001870NIA NIH HHS K01 AG073533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic visits (e-visits) are billable, asynchronous patient-initiated messages that require at least five minutes of medical decision-making by a provider. Unequal use of patient portal tools like e-visits by certain patient populations may worsen health disparities. To date, no study has attempted to qualitatively assess perceptions of e-visits in older adults.

objectiveIn this qualitative study, we aimed to understand patient perceptions of e-visits, including their perceived utility, barriers to use, and care implications, with a focus on vulnerable patient groups.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using in-depth structured individual interviews with patients from diverse backgrounds to assess their knowledge and perceptions surrounding e-visits as compared with unbilled portal messages and other visit types. We used content analysis to analyze interview data.

resultsWe conducted 20 interviews, all in adults older than 65 years. We identified 4 overarching coding categories or themes. First, participants were generally accepting of the concept of e-visits and willing to try them. Second, nearly two-thirds of the participants voiced a preference for synchronous communication. Third, participants had specific concerns about the name "e-visit" and when to choose this type of visit in the patient portal. Fourth, some participants indicated discomfort using or accessing technology for e-visits. Financial barriers to the use of e-visits was not a common theme.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that older adults are generally accepting of the concept of e-visits, but uptake may be limited due to their preference for synchronous communication. We identified several opportunities to improve e-visit implementation.

Indexed as

attitudedigital health toole-consulteHealthe-visitmessagingpatient portalpatient portal messageperceptionqualitativeremote careremote consultremote visittelehealthtelemedicinevulnerable

Identifiers

PMID37234031
PMCPMC10257108

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.