ArticleJMIR aging2025
Frequency of Electronic Personal Health Record Use in US Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Study of a National Survey.
Article in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engagement with the national electronic health records by people with Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Digital health platforms for intrinsic capacity monitoring in community-based integrated care for older adults: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The impact of smart healthcare and eldercare on older adults' health and health inequality: Evidence from China.Digital healthArticle
- An integrative framework for estimating personal healthy life expectancy from personal health records.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electronic personal health records (ePHRs) hold significant potential to improve health management for older adults by enhancing access to medical information and facilitating communication with health care providers. However, usage remains low among individuals aged 65 and older. While existing research has identified barriers such as low self-efficacy, limited digital literacy, and usability challenges, the specific factors influencing the use of ePHRs among older adults are not yet fully understood. Objective: This study integrates the Aging and Technology framework with the Patient Technology Acceptance Model to examine key predictors of ePHR use among older adults, including age, education, issue involvement, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and self-efficacy, while controlling for demographic factors such as gender, race, and income. Methods: This study utilizes data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5 cycle 3), which includes 532 respondents representing 13,136,180 US adults aged 65 years and older, after applying survey weights. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the factors influencing the frequency of ePHR access over the past 12 months. Results: The findings indicate that older adults with higher self-efficacy used ePHRs more frequently. Additionally, issue involvement, performance expectancy, and effort expectancy were positively associated with ePHR use. Notably, self-efficacy partially mediated the relationship between age and the frequency of ePHR use. Conclusions: These findings suggest that enhancing self-efficacy, improving usability, and increasing the perceived benefits of ePHRs are critical for boosting usage among older adults. The study underscores the need for targeted interventions to support older users, simplify digital interfaces, and provide accessible educational resources, ultimately contributing to better health outcomes and an improved quality of life for older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.