Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24272163›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Patient engagement in the inpatient setting: a systematic review.

Jennifer E Prey, Janet Woollen, Lauren Wilcox, Alexander D Sackeim, George Hripcsak, Suzanne Bakken, Susan Restaino, Steven Feiner, David K Vawdrey

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

137 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. A randomized controlled trial to improve engagement of hospitalized patients with their patient portals.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

77 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jennifer E PreyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Janet WoollenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Lauren WilcoxDepartment of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Alexander D SackeimCollege of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
George HripcsakDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Suzanne BakkenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Susan RestainoDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA NewYork Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Steven FeinerDepartment of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
David K VawdreyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · 1992 to 2025
$8.3M
AHRQ HHS 1R36HS021393-01AHRQ HHS R01 HS021816AHRQ HHS R01HS21816 ANDAHRQ HHS R36 HS021393NLM NIH HHS T15 LM00707NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review existing literature regarding patient engagement technologies used in the inpatient setting.

methodsPubMed, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that discussed patient engagement ('self-efficacy', 'patient empowerment', 'patient activation', or 'patient engagement'), (2) involved health information technology ('technology', 'games', 'electronic health record', 'electronic medical record', or 'personal health record'), and (3) took place in the inpatient setting ('inpatient' or 'hospital'). Only English language studies were reviewed.

results17 articles were identified describing the topic of inpatient patient engagement. A few articles identified design requirements for inpatient engagement technology. The remainder described interventions, which we grouped into five categories: entertainment, generic health information delivery, patient-specific information delivery, advanced communication tools, and personalized decision support.

conclusionsExamination of the current literature shows there are considerable gaps in knowledge regarding patient engagement in the hospital setting and inconsistent use of terminology regarding patient engagement overall. Research on inpatient engagement technologies has been limited, especially concerning the impact on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

HospitalizationPatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationCommunicationElectronic Health RecordsHumansInpatientsInternetMedical InformaticsSelf EfficacyTerminology as TopicVideo Gamesinpatientpatient engagementsystematic reviewtechnology

Identifiers

PMID24272163
PMCPMC4078275

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.