Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32734928›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

Patient Portal Functionalities and Uptake: Systematic Review Protocol.

Abrar Alturkistani, Geva Greenfield, Felix Greaves, Shirin Aliabadi, Rosemary H Jenkins, Ceire Costelloe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Design and evaluation patient portal for patients with HTLV-1.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Shifting Mindsets: The Impact of a Patient Portal on Functioning and Recovery in a Mental Health Setting.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Abrar AlturkistaniGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-8870
Geva GreenfieldPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9779-2486
Felix GreavesDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9393-3122
Shirin AliabadiGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3611-7377
Rosemary H JenkinsPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4600-2258
Ceire CostelloeGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3475-7525

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2016-09-015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient portals are digital health tools adopted by health care organizations. The portals are generally connected to the electronic health record of the health care organization and offer patients functionalities such as access to the medical record, ability to order repeat prescriptions, make appointments, or message the health care provider. Patient portals may be beneficial for both patients and the health care system. Patient portals can widely differ from one context to another due to the differences in the portal functionalities and capabilities and it is anticipated that outcomes associated with the functionalities also differ. Current systematic reviews report outcomes associated with patient portal uptake but do not explicitly specify the patient portal functionalities.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence on health and health care quality outcomes associated with patient portal use among adult (18 years or older) patients. The review research questions are as follows: What kind of health outcomes do tethered patient portals and patient portal functionalities contribute to in adult patients (18 years or older)? and What kind of health care quality outcomes, including health care utilization outcomes, do tethered patient portals and patient portal functionalities contribute to in adult patients (18 years or older)?

methodsThe systematic review will be conducted by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for relevant literature. The review inclusion criteria will be studies about adult patients (18 years or older), studies only about tethered patient portals, and studies with or without a comparator. We will report patient portal-associated health and health care quality outcomes based on the patient portal functionalities. All quantitative primary study types will be included. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's quality assessment tools. Data will be synthesized using narrative synthesis and will be reported according to the patient portal functionalities, country, disease, and health care system model.

resultsSearches will be conducted in September 2019, and the review is anticipated to be completed by the end of June 2020.

conclusionsThis systematic review will provide an overview of health and health care quality outcomes associated with patient portal use among adult patients, providing detailed information about the functionalities of the portals and their associations with the outcomes. The review could potentially help patient portal evaluation studies by providing insights into outcomes associated with the different functionalities of patient portals.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019141131; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=141131. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/14975.

Indexed as

electronic health recordsonline accesspatient portalpatient recordspersonal health recordsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32734928
PMCPMC7428936

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.