Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30973347›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

Patient Portals Facilitating Engagement With Inpatient Electronic Medical Records: A Systematic Review.

Ronald Dendere, Christine Slade, Andrew Burton-Jones, Clair Sullivan, Andrew Staib, Monika Janda

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

83 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

6 authors.

Ronald Dendere *Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7341-3098
Christine Slade *Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2197-2824
Andrew Burton-Jones *School of Business, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7865-4296
Clair Sullivan *Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-9989
Andrew Staib *Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Department of Health, Queensland Government, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2260-4142
Monika Janda *Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1728-8085

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEngaging patients in the delivery of health care has the potential to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Patient portals may enhance patient engagement by enabling patients to access their electronic medical records (EMRs) and facilitating secure patient-provider communication.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to review literature describing patient portals tethered to an EMR in inpatient settings, their role in patient engagement, and their impact on health care delivery in order to identify factors and best practices for successful implementation of this technology and areas that require further research.

methodsA systematic search for articles in the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases was conducted using keywords associated with patient engagement, electronic health records, and patient portals and their respective subject headings in each database. Articles for inclusion were evaluated for quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic review articles and the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs for empirical studies. Included studies were categorized by their focus on input factors (eg, portal design), process factors (eg, portal use), and output factors (eg, benefits) and by the valence of their findings regarding patient portals (ie, positive, negative, or mixed).

resultsThe systematic search identified 58 articles for inclusion. The inputs category was addressed by 40 articles, while the processes and outputs categories were addressed by 36 and 46 articles, respectively: 47 articles addressed multiple themes across the three categories, and 11 addressed only a single theme. Nineteen articles had high- to very high-quality, 21 had medium quality, and 18 had low- to very low-quality. Findings in the inputs category showed wide-ranging portal designs; patients' privacy concerns and lack of encouragement from providers were among portal adoption barriers while information access and patient-provider communication were among facilitators. Several methods were used to train portal users with varying success. In the processes category, sociodemographic characteristics and medical conditions of patients were predictors of portal use; some patients wanted unlimited access to their EMRs, personalized health education, and nonclinical information; and patients were keen to use portals for communicating with their health care teams. In the outputs category, some but not all studies found patient portals improved patient engagement; patients perceived some portal functions as inadequate but others as useful; patients and staff thought portals may improve patient care but could cause anxiety in some patients; and portals improved patient safety, adherence to medications, and patient-provider communication but had no impact on objective health outcomes.

conclusionsWhile the evidence is currently immature, patient portals have demonstrated benefit by enabling the discovery of medical errors, improving adherence to medications, and providing patient-provider communication, etc. High-quality studies are needed to fully understand, improve, and evaluate their impact.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHumansInpatientsPatient ParticipationPatient PortalsQualitative Researchdigital hospitalelectronic health recordelectronic medical recordpatient engagementpatient portal

Identifiers

PMID30973347
PMCPMC6482406

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.