ReviewAJPM focus2026
How and Under What Conditions Do Patient Portals Improve Cancer Screening Completion: A Scoping Review.
Review in AJPM focus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Studies have shown that patient portals facilitate cancer screening, but less is known about how. Causal pathway diagrams, which include influencing factors such as mechanisms and moderators, can be used to understand how portals improve screening. The authors conducted a scoping review of influencing factors to inform early causal pathway diagrams of the portal as a strategy to increase cancer screening. Methods: The authors searched PubMed for U.S. studies published from 2014 to 2024, including average-risk patients; portal interventions/evaluations; and primary outcomes of breast, cervical, colorectal, or lung cancer screening. Two authors completed manuscript screening and data extraction and synthesized findings to create causal pathway diagrams. Results: Thirty-two studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were often set in large academic health systems (n=13) or utilized survey data from nationally representative cohorts (n=11); 6 were RCTs. Most studies focused on breast (n=10) or colorectal (n=9) cancer screening. Of 21 studies comparing portal use with no use, 18 found that portals were associated with increased screening. Most proposed influencing factors were hypothetical, citing findings from prior literature rather than observed directly. Of the 10 studies that performed statistical analysis, significant moderators included provider recommendation for self-scheduling; significant mechanisms included cancer worry and patient activation for general portal use, cancer fatalism and patient activation for secure messaging with providers, and choice architecture for interventions delivered through secure messaging. Discussion: Few studies directly tested influencing factors, suggesting a significant research gap. More research is needed to further evaluate proposed mechanisms to understand how portals facilitate cancer screening and optimize implementation. Registration: The protocol for this scoping review was registered through Open Science Framework.
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.