Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37389909›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Patients' Experiences of a National Patient Portal and Its Usability: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Saija Simola, Iiris Hörhammer, Yuhui Xu, Annika Bärkås, Asbjørn Johansen Fagerlund, Josefin Hagström, Mari Holmroos, Maria Hägglund, Monika Alise Johansen, Bridget Kane and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Development and psychometric validation of the User Experience Scale for Artificial Intelligence QuestionZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  12. Precision and Virtual Care.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

13 authors.

Saija SimolaDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1819-1119
Iiris HörhammerDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9024-4153
Yuhui XuDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-3136-2149
Annika BärkåsDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1209-7714
Asbjørn Johansen FagerlundNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2331-8786
Josefin HagströmDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2835-0259
Mari HolmroosKela, The Social Insurance Institution of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8256-6697
Maria HägglundDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6839-3651
Monika Alise JohansenNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6353-8727
Bridget KaneKarlstad University Business School, Karlstad, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3211-6529
Anna KharkoDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0908-6173
Isabella ScandurraCenter for Empirical Research on Information Systems, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2597-1079
Sari KujalaDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5586-3725

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient portals not only provide patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) and other digital health services, such as prescription renewals, but they can also improve patients' self-management, engagement with health care professionals (HCPs), and care processes. However, these benefits depend on patients' willingness to use patient portals and, ultimately, their experiences with the usefulness and ease of use of the portals.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the perceived usability of a national patient portal and the relationship of patients' very positive and very negative experiences with perceived usability. The study was aimed to be the first step in developing an approach for benchmarking the usability of patient portals in different countries.

methodsData were collected through a web-based survey of the My Kanta patient portal's logged-in patient users in Finland from January 24, 2022, to February 14, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate the usability of the patient portal, and the ratings were used to calculate approximations of the System Usability Scale (SUS) score. Open-ended questions asked the patients about their positive and negative experiences with the patient portal. The statistical analysis included multivariate regression, and the experience narratives were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

resultsOf the 1,262,708 logged-in patient users, 4719 responded to the survey, giving a response rate of 0.37%. The patient portal's usability was rated as good, with a mean SUS score of 74.3 (SD 14.0). Reporting a very positive experience with the portal was positively associated with perceived usability (β=.51; P<.001), whereas reporting a very negative experience was negatively associated with perceived usability (β=-1.28; P<.001). These variables explained 23% of the variation in perceived usability. The information provided and a lack of information were the most common positive and negative experiences. Furthermore, specific functionalities, such as prescription renewal and the ease of using the patient portal, were often mentioned as very positive experiences. The patients also mentioned negative emotions, such as anger and frustration, as part of their very negative experiences.

conclusionsThe study offers empirical evidence about the significant role of individual experiences when patients are evaluating the usability of patient portals. The results suggest that positive and negative experiences provide relevant information that can be used for improving the patient portal's usability. Usability should be improved so that patients receive information efficiently, easily, and quickly. Respondents would also appreciate interactive features in the patient portal.

Indexed as

Patient PortalsBenchmarkingCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFinlandHumanselectronic health recordnational surveypatient-accessible electronic health recordspatient experiencespatient portalperceived usabilitySystem Usability Scale

Identifiers

PMID37389909
PMCPMC10365631

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.