Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36735739›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Patients' choices regarding online access to laboratory, radiology and pathology test results on a hospital patient portal.

Pauline Hulter, Wesley Langendoen, Bettine Pluut, Guus G Schoonman, Remco Luijten, Femke van Wetten, Kees Ahaus, Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Pauline HulterErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5545-178X
Wesley LangendoenErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4518-702X
Bettine PluutErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Guus G SchoonmanDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Remco LuijtenDepartment of Rheumatology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Femke van WettenETZ Digital, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6436-379X
Kees AhausErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9973-3746
Anne Marie Weggelaar-JansenErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLEindhoven University of Technology · NLTilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The disclosure of online test results (i.e., laboratory, radiology and pathology results) on patient portals can vary from immediate disclosure (in real-time) via a delay of up to 28 days to non-disclosure. Although a few studies explored patient opinions regarding test results release, we have no insight into actual patients' preferences. To address this, we allowed patients to register their choices on a hospital patient portal. Our research question was: When do patients want their test results to be disclosed on the patient portal and what are the reasons for these choices? We used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design that included 1) patient choices on preferred time delay to test result disclosure on the patient portal for different medical specialties (N = 4592) and 2) semi-structured interviews with patients who changed their mind on their initial choice (N = 7). For laboratory (blood and urine) results, 3530 (76.9%) patients chose a delay of 1 day and 912 (19.9%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. For radiology and pathology results 4352 (94.8%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. 43 patients changed their mind about when they wanted to receive their results. By interviewing seven patients (16%) from this group we learned that some participants did not remember why they made changes. Four participants wanted a shorter delay to achieve transparency in health-related information and communication; to have time to process bad results; for reassurance; to prepare for a medical consultation; monitoring and acting on deviating results to prevent worsening of their disease; and to share results with their general practitioner. Three participants extended their chosen delay to avoid the disappointment about the content and anxiety of receiving incomprehensible information. Our study indicates that most patients prefer transparency in health-related information and want their test results to be disclosed as soon as possible.

Indexed as

Patient PortalsRadiologyElectronic Health RecordsHospitalsHumansRadiography

Identifiers

PMID36735739
PMCPMC9897579
OpenAlexW4319062779

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.