ArticlePediatric pulmonology2025
Parent-Reported Usability of a Patient Portal-Based Asthma Care Tool for Parents of Children With Asthma.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Potential of patient portals to enhance adolescent asthma care engagement.Health care transitions · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study evaluates our new EHR-integrated patient portal for asthma care (PAC) management module for parents of children with asthma. The module includes a previsit asthma intake questionnaire via the portal. The parent answers are integrated into the provider's clinic progress note to support clinical decision-making. Our goals were to measure the functionality and usability of the PAC module and to understand facilitators and barriers to its use for parents.
methodsParents of children ages 0-11 years old (n = 45) completed the PAC module's asthma intake questionnaires prior to their upcoming pediatric pulmonology clinic visit. To assess functionality, provider progress notes were manually reviewed to measure the amount of key asthma-related data captured. Differences in percent data captured with and without the PAC module were compared. Electronic surveys capture demographics, usability data (the System Usability Scale [SUS]), and open-ended experiential feedback about the module. Analysis included descriptive statistics for demographics and usability, as well as the constant comparative method for open-ended feedback.
resultsThe PAC module at this early stage of design significantly improved the capture of key asthma data in physician notes, increasing from 77% to 92% (p < 0.001). The average SUS score (83.8) indicated high usability. Favorable aspects of the module that were identified included time savings and ease of use.
conclusionOur PAC module enhanced data capture of key asthma management elements and demonstrated high parental usability. We will continue to refine the module through an iterative approach based on end-user feedback, with future expansion planned for broader patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.