Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40198070›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Repeated Access to Patient Portal While Awaiting Test Results and Patient-Initiated Messaging.

Bryan D Steitz, Robert W Turer, Liz Salmi, Uday Suresh, Scott MacDonald, Catherine M DesRoches, Adam Wright, Jeremy Louissaint, S Trent Rosenbloom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 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.
Liz SalmiDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Uday SureshDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Scott MacDonaldDepartment of Clinical Informatics, University of California, Davis Health, Sacramento.
Catherine M DesRochesDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Adam WrightDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jeremy LouissaintDivision of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
S Trent RosenbloomDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Funding

Integrative Data Science Approach to Advance Care Coordination of ADRD by Primary Care ProvidersK01AG083133 · NIA · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Bryan Steitz · 2023 to 2026
$479k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG083133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patients have immediate access to test results in the patient portal, which can cause worry. Identifying behaviors associated with worry while awaiting results may allow health systems to support patients and reduce message volumes. Objective: To describe characteristics of patients who refresh their portal while awaiting test results and measure the association between refresh behavior and patient-initiated messaging. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study was performed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, which uses a MyChart-based patient portal. All adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who received outpatient test results between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, were included. Exposures: Use of the patient portal to review test results. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who refreshed the portal while awaiting test results. Tests were stratified into low-sensitivity (eg, basic metabolic panel) and high-sensitivity (eg, tissue biopsy) groups using validated categories based on each test's likelihood of being misinterpreted or causing distress. Portal access logs were used to identify refresh behaviors, in which patients accessed the portal seeking new results. Secondary outcomes included the association between patient characteristics and refresh behavior and between refresh behavior and messaging as measured using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 968 774 results were reviewed by 290 349 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.8 [18.0] years; 66.3% female). Patients refreshed their portal for 25.9% of results. Patients more commonly refreshed for high-sensitivity results (25 280 of 64 356 [39.3%]) compared with low sensitivity results (225 516 of 904 418 [24.9%]) (P < .001). Patients who enabled notifications had higher odds of refreshing for high-sensitivity results (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and low-sensitivity results (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.49-1.59). Each refresh for high-sensitivity results was associated with a lower increase in the probability of messaging within 24 hours (mean marginal effect, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.34-0.49) compared with refreshing for low-sensitivity results (mean marginal effect, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11). Conclusion and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found an association of patients' refresh activity for low-sensitivity results with patient-initiated messaging after review. These findings suggest that refresh behavior, a potential measure of worry, may be a characteristic of patient attitudes and preferences rather than the test.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient PortalsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID40198070
PMCPMC11979724

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.