Patterns and predictors of cancer-specific patient health portal usage among patients with cancer: results from the UWCCC Survivorship Program.

BACKGROUND: Portals can assist patients in managing their healthcare. Understanding how patients with cancer use portals can facilitate improvements in patient engagement in cancer care. This study sought to determine if patients with cancer used portals differently for cancer versus noncancer purposes. The effects of geographic residence (rural vs. urban residence) and cancer stage on portal usage were also investigated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of portal usage by patients seen at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2015 and 2019. Demographics, cancer characteristics, and portal usage (number of successful logins, messages sent, and results viewed) were extracted. Messages sent and results viewed in the portal were deemed oncologist-specific and cancer specific if sent to or ordered in medical oncology departments, respectively. RESULTS: The analysis included a total of 5950 patients with cancer. Patients were less likely to send and view oncologist-specific messages compared to non-oncologist-specific messages. They were also less likely to view cancer results compared to noncancer results. Compared to urban counterparts, patients residing in rural areas had lower odds of having any logins and logged in less frequently during the year of diagnosis. Compared to patients with non-metastatic disease, individuals with metastatic disease were more likely to become frequent portal users. CONCLUSIONS: Patients may use portals differently for cancer versus noncancer purposes; urban residence and metastatic cancer were associated with more frequent usage. Further investigation can inform interventions to increase accessibility for groups at a disadvantage related to the use of this technology and to help patients better leverage portals to manage their cancer.

Phase I prognostic online (PIPO): A web tool to improve patient selection for oncology early phase clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Patient selection in phase 1 clinical trials (Ph1t) continues to be a challenge. The aim of this study was to develop a user-friendly prognostic calculator for predicting overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients to be included in Ph1t with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or targeted agents (TAs) based on clinical parameters assessed at baseline. METHODS: Using a training cohort with consecutive patients from the VHIO phase 1 unit, we constructed a prognostic model to predict median OS (mOS) as a primary endpoint and 3-month (3m) OS rate as a secondary endpoint. The model was validated in an internal cohort after temporal data splitting and represented as a web application. RESULTS: We recruited 799 patients (training and validation sets, 558 and 241, respectively). Median follow-up was 21.2 months (m), mOS was 10.2 m (95% CI, 9.3-12.7) for ICIs cohort and 7.7 m (95% CI, 6.6-8.6) for TAs cohort. In the multivariable analysis, six prognostic variables were independently associated with OS - ECOG, number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio [dNLR], albumin and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. The phase 1 prognostic online (PIPO) calculator showed adequate discrimination and calibration performance for OS, with C-statistics of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78) in the validation set. The overall accuracy of the model for 3m OS prediction was 87.2% (95% CI 85%-90%). CONCLUSIONS: PIPO is a user-friendly objective and interactive tool to calculate specific survival probabilities for each patient before enrolment in a Ph1t. The tool is available at https://pipo.vhio.net/.

Patient Electronic Access to Final Radiology Reports: What Is the Current Standard of Practice, and Is an Embargo Period Appropriate?

Patients have a right to their medical records, and it has become commonplace for institutions to set up online portals through which patients can access their electronic health information, including radiology reports. However, institutional approaches vary on how and when such access is provided. Many institutions have advocated built-in "embargo" periods, during which radiology reports are not immediately released to patients, to give ordering clinicians the opportunity to first receive, review, and discuss the radiology report with their patients. To understand current practices, a telephone survey was conducted of 83 hospitals identified in the 2019-2020 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Rankings. Of 70 respondents, 91% (64 of 70) offered online portal access. Forty-two percent of those with online access (27 of 64 respondents) reported a delay of 4 days or longer, and 52% (33 of 64 respondents) indicated that they first send reports for review by the referring clinician before releasing to the patient. This demonstrates a lack of standardized practice in prompt patient access to health records, which may soon be mandated under the final rule of the 21st Century Cures Act. This article discusses considerations and potential benefits of early access for patients, radiologists, and primary care physicians in communicating health information and providing patient-centered care. © RSNA, 2021.

Quantifying Patient Portal Use: Systematic Review of Utilization Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Use of patient portals has been associated with positive outcomes in patient engagement and satisfaction. Portal studies have also connected portal use, as well as the nature of users' interactions with portals, and the contents of their generated data to meaningful cost and quality outcomes. Incentive programs in the United States have encouraged uptake of health information technology, including patient portals, by setting standards for meaningful use of such technology. However, despite widespread interest in patient portal use and adoption, studies on patient portals differ in actual metrics used to operationalize and track utilization, leading to unsystematic and incommensurable characterizations of use. No known review has systematically assessed the measurements used to investigate patient portal utilization. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to apply systematic review criteria to identify and compare methods for quantifying and reporting patient portal use. METHODS: Original studies with quantifiable metrics of portal use published in English between 2014 and the search date of October 17, 2018, were obtained from PubMed using the Medical Subject Heading term "Patient Portals" and related keyword searches. The first search round included full text review of all results to confirm a priori data charting elements of interest and suggest additional categories inductively; this round was supplemented by the retrieval of works cited in systematic reviews (based on title screening of all citations). An additional search round included broader keywords identified during the full-text review of the first round. Second round results were screened at abstract level for inclusion and confirmed by at least two raters. Included studies were analyzed for metrics related to basic use/adoption, frequency of use, duration metrics, intensity of use, and stratification of users into "super user" or high utilizers. Additional categories related to provider (including care team/administrative) use of the portal were identified inductively. Additional analyses included metrics aligned with meaningful use stage 2 (MU-2) categories employed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the association between the number of portal metrics examined and the number of citations and the journal impact factor. RESULTS: Of 315 distinct search results, 87 met the inclusion criteria. Of the a priori metrics, plus provider use, most studies included either three (26 studies, 30%) or four (23 studies, 26%) metrics. Nine studies (10%) only reported the patient use/adoption metric and only one study (1%) reported all six metrics. Of the US-based studies (n=76), 18 (24%) were explicitly motivated by MU-2 compliance; 40 studies (53%) at least mentioned these incentives, but only 6 studies (8%) presented metrics from which compliance rates could be inferred. Finally, the number of metrics examined was not associated with either the number of citations or the publishing journal's impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: Portal utilization measures in the research literature can fall below established standards for "meaningful" or they can substantively exceed those standards in the type and number of utilization properties measured. Understanding how patient portal use has been defined and operationalized may encourage more consistent, well-defined, and perhaps more meaningful standards for utilization, informing future portal development.

Using the Patient Portal Sexual Health Instrument in Surveys and Patient Questionnaires Among Sexual Minority Men in the United States: Cross-sectional Psychometric Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient portal modules, including electronic personal health records, health education, and prescription refill ordering, may be leveraged to address the sexually transmitted infection (STI) burden, including HIV, among gay, bisexual, and other sexual minority men (SMM). Theoretical frameworks in the implementation sciences highlight examining constructs of innovation attributes and performance expectations as key determinants of behavioral intentions and the use of new web-based health technologies. However, behavioral intentions to use patient portals for HIV and other STI prevention and care among SMM is understudied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop a brief instrument for measuring attitudes focused on using patient portals for STI prevention and care among a nationwide sample of SMM. METHODS: A total of 12 items of the American Men's Internet Survey-Patient Portal Sexual Health Instrument (AMIS-PPSHI) were adapted from a previous study. Psychometric analyses of the AMIS-PPSHI items were conducted among a randomized subset of 2018 AMIS participants reporting web-based access to their health records (N=1375). Parallel analysis and inspection of eigenvalues in a principal component analysis (PCA) informed factor retention in exploratory factor analysis (EFA). After EFA, Cronbach α was used to examine the internal consistency of the scale and its subscales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the goodness of fit of the final factor structure. We calculated the total AMIS-PPSHI scale scores for comparisons within group categories, including age, STI diagnosis history, recency of testing, serious mental illness, and anticipated health care stigma. RESULTS: The AMIS-PPSHI scale resulting from EFA consisted of 12 items and had good internal consistency (α=.84). The EFA suggested 3 subscales: sexual health engagement and awareness (α=.87), enhancing dyadic communication (α=.87), and managing sexual health care (α=.79). CFA demonstrated good fit in the 3-factor PPSHI structure: root mean square error of approximation=0.061, comparative fit index=0.964, Tucker-Lewis index=0.953, and standardized root mean square residual=0.041. The most notable differences were lower scores on the enhanced dyadic communication subscale among people living with HIV. CONCLUSIONS: PPSHI is a brief instrument with strong psychometric properties that may be adapted for use in large surveys and patient questionnaires in other settings. Scores demonstrate that patient portals are favorable web-based solutions to deliver health services focused on STI prevention and care among SMM in the United States. More attention is needed to address the privacy implications of interpersonal use of patient portals outside of traditional health settings among persons with HIV.

The Causal Relationship Between Portal Usage and Self-Efficacious Health Information-Seeking Behaviors: Secondary Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals have drawn much attention, as they are considered an important tool for health providers in facilitating patient engagement. However, little is known about whether the intensive use of patient portals contributes to improved management of patients' health in terms of their confidence in acquiring health information and exercising self-care. There is a lack of randomized trials with these outcomes measured both pre- and postadoption of patient portals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the causal relationship between the usage of patient portals and patients' self-efficacy toward obtaining health information and performing self-care. METHODS: This study was a secondary data analysis that used data from a US national survey, the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 1. Patient portal usage frequency was used to define the treatment. Survey items measuring self-efficacy on a Likert-type scale were selected as the main outcomes, including patients' confidence in obtaining health information and performing self-care. To establish causality using survey data, we adopted the instrumental variables method. To determine the direction of the causal relationship in the presence of high-dimensional confounders, we further proposed a novel testing framework that employs conditional independence tests in a directed acyclic graph. The average causal effect was measured using the two-stage least squares regression method. RESULTS: We showed that frequently using patient portals improves patients' confidence in obtaining health information. The estimand of the weighted average causal effect was 0.14 (95% CI 0.06-0.23; P<.001). This means that when increasing the portal usage intensity, for instance, from 1-2 times to 3-5 times per year, the expected average increase in confidence level measured on a Likert-type scale would be 0.14. However, we could not conclusively determine the causal effect between patient portal usage and patients' confidence in exercising self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the use of patient portals and encourage better support and education to patients. The proposed statistical method can be used to exploit the potential of national survey data for causal inference studies.

Persistent inequitable design and implementation of patient portals for users at the margins.

OBJECTIVE: Diane Forsythe and other feminist scholars have long shown how system builders' tacit assumptions lead to the systematic erasure of certain users from the design process. In spite of this phenomena being known in the health informatics literature for decades, recent research shows how patient portals and electronic patients health records continue to reproduce health inequalities in Western societies. To better understand this discrepancy between scholarly awareness of such inequities and mainstream design, this study unravels the (conceptual) assumptions and practices of designers and others responsible for portal implementation in the Netherlands and how citizens living in vulnerable circumstances are included in this process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews (n = 24) and questionnaires (n = 14) with portal designers, health professionals, and policy advisors. RESULTS: In daily design practices, equity is seen as an "end-of-the-pipeline" concern. Respondents identify health care professionals rather than patients as their main users. If patients are included in the design, this generally entails patients in privileged positions. The needs of citizens living in vulnerable circumstances are not prioritized in design processes. Developers legitimize their focus with reference to the innovation-theoretical approach of the Diffusion of Innovations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although feminist scholars have developed important understandings of the exclusion of citizens living in vulnerable circumstances from portal design, other academic efforts have profoundly shaped daily practices of portal development. Diane Forsythe would likely have taken up this discrepancy as a challenge by finding ways to translate these insights into mainstream systems design.

Can caregivers trust information technology in the care of their patients? A systematic review.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requires that healthcare providers allow patients to engage in their healthcare by allowing access to their health records. Often patients need informal caregivers including family members or others to help them with their care. This paper explores whether trust is a key factor for informal caregivers' decision to use health information technologies (HIT) including electronic health records (EHR), patient portals, mobile apps, or other devices to care for their patient. Six reviewers conducted a comprehensive search of four literature databases using terms that pertained to a caregiver and trust to investigate the role trust plays when caregivers use HIT. While trust is a key factor for the use of HIT, it the researchers only identified ten articles that met the research question thresholds. Four main topics of trust surfaced including perceived confidentiality, perceived security, technological malfunction, and trustworthiness of the information. Trust is a critical factor for informal caregivers when using HIT to assist in the care of their patient (child, loved one, parent, or acquaintance). Based on the findings, it is clear that more research on the use of HIT by caregivers is needed.

Health Care Professionals' Experiences of Patient-Professional Communication Over Patient Portals: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of web-based patient-professional communication over patient portals is constantly increasing. Good patient-professional communication is a prerequisite for high-quality care and patient centeredness. Understanding health care professionals' experiences of web-based patient-professional communication is important as they play a key role in engaging patients to use portals. More information is needed on how patient-professional communication could be supported by patient portals in health care. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review of qualitative studies aims to identify how health care professionals experience web-based patient-professional communication over the patient portals. METHODS: Abstract and full-text reviews were conducted by 2 reviewers independently. A total of 4 databases were used for the study: CINAHL (EBSCO), ProQuest (ABI/INFORM), Scopus, and PubMed. The inclusion criteria for the reviewed studies were as follows: the examination of health care professionals' experiences, reciprocal communication between patients and health care professionals, peer-reviewed scientific articles, and studies published between 2010 and 2019. The Joanna Briggs Institute's quality assessment criteria were used in the review process. A total of 13 included studies were analyzed using a thematic synthesis, which was conducted by 3 reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 6 analytical themes concerning health care professionals' experiences of web-based patient-professional communication were identified. The themes were related to health care professionals' work, change in communication over patient portals, patients' use of patient portals, the suitability of patient portals for communication, the convenience of patient portals for communication, and change in roles. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals' experiences contain both positive and negative insights into web-based patient-professional communication over patient portals. Most commonly, the positive experiences seem to be related to the patients and patient outcomes, such as having better patient engagement. Health care professionals also have negative experiences, for example, web-based patient-professional communication sometimes has deficiencies and has a negative impact on their workload. These negative experiences may be explained by the poor functionality of the patient portals and insufficient training and resources. To reduce health care professionals' negative experiences of web-based patient-professional communication, their experiences should be taken into account by policy makers, health care organizations, and information technology enterprises when developing patient portals. In addition, more training regarding web-based patient-professional communication and patient portals should be provided to health care professionals.

Capturing the Impact of Patient Portals Based on the Quadruple Aim and Benefits Evaluation Frameworks: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive and continuing research in the area of patient portals, measuring the impact of patient portals remains a convoluted process. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore what is known about patient portal evaluations and to provide recommendations for future endeavors. The focus is on mapping the measures used to assess the impact of patient portals on the dimensions of the Quadruple Aim (QA) framework and the Canada Health Infoway's Benefits Evaluation (BE) framework. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Reporting was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews. A systematic and comprehensive search was conducted using the Ovid platform, and the following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE (R) ALL (including epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations), EMBASE, and PsycINFO. CINAHL on the EBSCO platform and Web of Science were searched for studies published between March 2015 and June 2020. A systematic gray literature search was conducted using the Google search engine. Extracted data were tabulated based on a coding template developed to categorize the literature into themes and areas of interest. RESULTS: A total of 96 studies were included for data extraction. The studies were categorized based on the QA dimensions, with strict adherence to the definitions for each dimension. From the patients' perspective, it was determined that most evaluations focused on benefits and barriers to access, access to test results, medication adherence, condition management, medical notes, and secure messaging. From the population perspective, the evaluations focused on the increase in population outreach, decrease in disparities related to access to care services, and improvement in quality of care. From the health care workforce perspective, the evaluations focused on the impact of patients accessing medical records, impact on workflow, impact of bidirectional secure messaging, and virtual care. From the health system perspective, the evaluations focused on decreases in no-show appointments, impact on office visits and telephone calls, impact on admission and readmission rates and emergency department visits, and impact on health care use. Overall, 77 peer-reviewed studies were mapped on the expanded version of the BE framework. The mapping was performed using subdimensions to create a more precise representation of the areas that are currently explored when studying patient portals. Most of the studies evaluated more than one subdimension. CONCLUSIONS: The QA and BE frameworks provide guidance in identifying gaps in the current literature by providing a way to show how an impact was assessed. This study highlights the need to appropriately plan how the impact will be assessed and how the findings will be translated into effective adaptations.

Patient Challenges and Needs in Comprehending Laboratory Test Results: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly able to access their laboratory test results via patient portals. However, merely providing access does not guarantee comprehension. Patients could experience confusion when reviewing their test results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the challenges and needs of patients when comprehending laboratory test results. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey with 203 participants and a set of semistructured interviews with 13 participants. We assessed patients' perceived challenges and needs (both informational and technological needs) when they attempted to comprehend test results, factors associated with patients' perceptions, and strategies for improving the design of patient portals to communicate laboratory test results more effectively. Descriptive and correlation analysis and thematic analysis were used to analyze the survey and interview data, respectively. RESULTS: Patients face a variety of challenges and confusion when reviewing laboratory test results. To better comprehend laboratory results, patients need different types of information, which are grouped into 2 categories-generic information (eg, reference range) and personalized or contextual information (eg, treatment options, prognosis, what to do or ask next). We also found that several intrinsic factors (eg, laboratory result normality, health literacy, and technology proficiency) significantly impact people's perceptions of using portals to view and interpret laboratory results. The desired enhancements of patient portals include providing timely explanations and educational resources (eg, a health encyclopedia), increasing usability and accessibility, and incorporating artificial intelligence-based technology to provide personalized recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients face significant challenges in interpreting the meaning of laboratory test results. Designers and developers of patient portals should employ user-centered approaches to improve the design of patient portals to present information in a more meaningful way.

The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals have emerged as a recognized digital health strategy. To date, research on patient portals has grown rapidly. However, there has been limited evaluation of the growing body of evidence on portal availability, use, clinical or health behavior and outcomes, and portal adoption over time. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to comprehensively consolidate the current state of evidence on patient portals using the umbrella review methodology, introduce our approach for evaluating evidence for quantitative and qualitative findings presented in included systematic reviews, and present a knowledge translation tool that can be used to inform all stages of patient portal adoption. METHODS: For this study, a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review method was used. Multiple databases were searched for systematic reviews focused on patient portals, and the final sample included 14 reviews. We conducted a meta-level synthesis of findings from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods primary studies reported in systematic reviews. We organized the umbrella review findings according to the Clinical Adoption Meta-Model (CAMM). Vote-counting, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), and CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Review of Qualitative Research) were used to assess the umbrella review evidence. RESULTS: Our knowledge translation tool summarizes the findings in the form of an evidence map. Organized by the CAMM categories, the map describes the following factors that influence portal adoption and effects over time: patient contexts, patient's interest and satisfaction, portal design, facilitators and barriers, providers' attitudes, service utilization, behavioral effects, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. The map lists the theories and mechanisms recognized in the included portal research while identifying the need for business models and organizational theories that can inform all stages of portal adoption. Our GRADE and CERQual umbrella review evaluation resulted in the majority of evidence being rated as moderate to low, which reflects methodological issues in portal research, insufficient number of studies, or mixed results in specific focus areas. The 2 findings with a high rating of evidence were patients' interest in using portals for communication and the importance of a simple display of information in the portals. Over 40 portal features were identified in the umbrella review, with communication through secure messaging and appointment booking mentioned in all systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Our umbrella review provides a meta-level synthesis to make sense of the evidence on patient portals from published systematic reviews. Unsystematic and variable reporting of portal features undermines the ability to evaluate and compare portal effects and overlooks the specific context of portal use. Research designs sensitive to the social, organizational, policy, and temporal dimensions are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and context that leverage the identified factors to improve portal use and effects.

Impact of Patient-Clinical Team Secure Messaging on Communication Patterns and Patient Experience: Randomized Encouragement Design Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although secure messaging (SM) between patients and clinical team members is a recommended component of continuous care, uptake by patients remains relatively low. We designed a multicomponent Supported Adoption Program (SAP) to increase SM adoption among patients using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for primary care. OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to (1) conduct a multisite, randomized, encouragement design trial to test the effectiveness of an SAP designed to increase patient engagement with SM through VHA's online patient portal (My HealtheVet [MHV]) and (2) evaluate the impact of the SAP and patient-level SM adoption on perceived provider autonomy support and communication. Patient-reported barriers to SM adoption were also assessed. METHODS: We randomized 1195 patients at 3 VHA facilities who had MHV portal accounts but had never used SM. Half were randomized to receive the SAP, and half served as controls receiving usual care. The SAP consisted of encouragement to adopt SM via mailed educational materials, proactive SM sent to patients, and telephone-based motivational interviews. We examined differences in SM adoption rates between SAP recipients and controls at 9 months and 21 months. Follow-up telephone surveys were conducted to assess perceived provider autonomy support and self-report of telephone communication with clinical teams. RESULTS: Patients randomized to the SAP had significantly higher rates of SM adoption than the control group (101/595, 17.0% vs 40/600, 6.7%; P<.001). Most adopters in the SAP sent their first message without a motivational interview (71/101, 70.3%). The 10-percentage point difference in adoption persisted a full year after the encouragement ended (23.7%, 142/600 in the SAP group vs 13.5%, 80/595 in the control group, P<.001). We obtained follow-up survey data from 49.54% (592/1195) of the participants. SAP participants reported higher perceived provider autonomy support (5.7 vs 5.4, P=.007) and less telephone use to communicate with their provider (68.8% vs 76.0%, P=.05), compared to patients in the control group. Patient-reported barriers to SM adoption included self-efficacy (eg, not comfortable using a computer, 24%), no perceived need for SM (22%), and difficulties with portal password or login (17%). CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent SAP was successful in increasing use of SM 10 percentage points above standard care; new SM adopters reported improved perceptions of provider autonomy support and less use of the telephone to communicate with their providers. Still, despite the encouragement and technical assistance provided through the SAP, adoption rates were lower than anticipated, reaching only 24% at 21 months (10% above controls). Common barriers to adoption such as limited perceived need for SM may be more challenging to address and require different interventions than barriers related to patient self-efficacy or technical difficulties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02665468; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02665468.

Portals of Change: How Patient Portals Will Ultimately Work for Safety Net Populations.

Despite the implementation of internet patient portals into the safety net after the introduction of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, little attention has been paid to the process of engaging vulnerable patients into these portals. The portal is a health technology tool that was developed with a mainstream, English-speaking audience in mind. Thus, there are valid concerns that such technologies will actually exacerbate health care disparities, conferring further advantages to the already advantaged. In this paper, we describe a framework for portal engagement (awareness, registration, and use) among safety net patients. We incorporate the experiences in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services to illustrate important contextual factors for portal outreach in our safety net. Finally, we discuss considerations for moving forward with health technology in the safety net as the next version of patient portals are being developed.

Research Participants' Perspectives on Using an Electronic Portal for Engagement and Data Collection: Focus Group Results From a Large Epidemiologic Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic cohort studies have begun to leverage electronic research participant portals to facilitate data collection, integrate wearable technologies, lower costs, and engage participants. However, little is known about the acceptability of portal use by research participants. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to conduct focus groups among a sample of Cancer Prevention Study-3 (CPS-3) participants to better understand their preferences and concerns about research portals. METHODS: CPS-3 participants were stratified based on sex, race and ethnicity, age, and cancer status, and randomly invited to participate. Focus groups used an exploratory case design with semistructured guides to prompt discussion. Using a constant comparison technique, transcripts were assigned codes to identify themes. RESULTS: Participants (31/59, 52% women; 52/59, 88% White/non-Latinx) were favorably disposed toward using a research participant portal to take surveys, communicate with the study staff, and upload data. Most participants indicated that a portal would be beneficial and convenient but expressed concerns over data safety. Participants stressed the importance of an easy-to-use and trustworthy portal that is compatible with mobile devices. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to being beneficial to researchers, portals may also benefit participants as long as the portals are secure and simple. Participants believe that portals can provide convenient ways to report data and remain connected to the study.

Electronic Health Record Portal Messages and Interactive Voice Response Calls to Improve Rates of Early Season Influenza Vaccination: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient reminders for influenza vaccination, delivered via an electronic health record patient portal and interactive voice response calls, offer an innovative approach to engaging patients and improving patient care. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to test the effectiveness of portal and interactive voice response outreach in improving rates of influenza vaccination by targeting patients in early September, shortly after vaccinations became available. METHODS: Using electronic health record portal messages and interactive voice response calls promoting influenza vaccination, outreach was conducted in September 2015. Participants included adult patients within a large multispecialty group practice in central Massachusetts. Our main outcome was electronic health record-documented early influenza vaccination during the 2015-2016 influenza season, measured in November 2015. We randomly assigned all active portal users to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving a portal message promoting influenza vaccinations, listing upcoming clinics, and offering online scheduling of vaccination appointments (n=19,506) or (2) receiving usual care (n=19,505). We randomly assigned all portal nonusers to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving interactive voice response call (n=15,000) or (2) receiving usual care (n=43,596). The intervention also solicited patient self-reports on influenza vaccinations completed outside the clinic. Self-reported influenza vaccination data were uploaded into the electronic health records to increase the accuracy of existing provider-directed electronic health record clinical decision support (vaccination alerts) but were excluded from main analyses. RESULTS: Among portal users, 28.4% (5549/19,506) of those randomized to receive messages and 27.1% (5294/19,505) of the usual care group had influenza vaccinations documented by November 2015 (P=.004). In multivariate analysis of portal users, message recipients were slightly more likely to have documented vaccinations when compared to the usual care group (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Among portal nonusers, 8.4% (1262/15,000) of those randomized to receive calls and 8.2% (3586/43,596) of usual care had documented vaccinations (P=.47), and multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant differences. Over half of portal messages sent were opened (10,112/19,479; 51.9%), and over half of interactive voice response calls placed (7599/14,984; 50.7%) reached their intended target, thus we attained similar levels of exposure to the messaging for both interventions. Among portal message recipients, 25.4% of message openers (2570/10,112) responded to a subsequent question on receipt of influenza vaccination; among interactive voice response recipients, 72.5% of those reached (5513/7599) responded to a similar question. CONCLUSIONS: Portal message outreach to a general primary care population achieved a small but statistically significant improvement in rates of influenza vaccination (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Interactive voice response calls did not significantly improve vaccination rates among portal nonusers (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.10). Rates of patient engagement with both modalities were favorable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266277; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02266277.

Patient Portal Functionalities and Patient Outcomes Among Patients With Diabetes: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient portal use could help improve the care and health outcomes of patients with diabetes owing to functionalities, such as appointment booking, electronic messaging (e-messaging), and repeat prescription ordering, which enable patient-centered care and improve patient self-management of the disease. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to summarize the evidence regarding patient portal use (portals that are connected to electronic health care records) or patient portal functionality use (eg, appointment booking and e-messaging) and their reported associations with health and health care quality outcomes among adult patients with diabetes. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases and reported the review methodology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Three independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and two reviewers assessed the full texts of relevant studies and performed data extraction and quality assessments of the included studies. We used the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were summarized through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review. Five studies reported overall patient portal use and its association with diabetes health and health care quality outcomes. Six studies reported e-messaging or email use-associated outcomes, and two studies reported prescription refill-associated outcomes. The reported health outcomes included the associations of patient portal use with blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and BMI. Few studies reported health care utilization outcomes such as office visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. A limited number of studies reported overall quality of care for patients with diabetes who used patient portals. CONCLUSIONS: The included studies mostly reported improved glycemic control outcomes for patients with diabetes who used patient portals. However, limitations of studying the effects of patient portals exist, which do not guarantee whether the outcomes reported are completely the result of patient portal use or if confounding factors exist. Randomized controlled trials and mixed-methods studies could help understand the mechanisms involved in health outcome improvements and patient portal use among patients with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019141131; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019141131. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/14975.

Patient Portal Barriers and Group Differences: Cross-Sectional National Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Past studies examining barriers to patient portal adoption have been conducted with a small number of patients and health care settings, limiting generalizability. OBJECTIVE: This study had the following two objectives: (1) to assess the prevalence of barriers to patient portal adoption among nonadopters and (2) to examine the association between nonadopter characteristics and reported barriers in a nationally representative sample. METHODS: Data from this study were obtained from the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey. We calculated descriptive statistics to determine the most prevalent barriers and conducted multiple variable logistic regression analysis to examine which characteristics were associated with the reported barriers. RESULTS: The sample included 4815 individuals. Among these, 2828 individuals (58.73%) had not adopted a patient portal. Among the nonadopters (n=2828), the most prevalent barriers were patient preference for in-person communication (1810/2828, 64.00%), no perceived need for the patient portal (1385/2828, 48.97%), and lack of comfort and experience with computers (735/2828, 25.99%). Less commonly, individuals reported having no patient portal (650/2828, 22.98%), no internet access (650/2828, 22.98%), privacy concerns (594/2828, 21.00%), difficulty logging on (537/2828, 18.99%), and multiple patient portals (255/2828, 9.02%) as barriers. Men had significantly lower odds of indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider compared with women (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94; P=.01). Older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; P<.001), having a chronic condition (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.44-2.33; P<.001), and having an income lower than US $20,000 (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11-2.34; P=.01) were positively associated with indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider. Hispanic individuals had significantly higher odds of indicating that they had no need for a patient portal (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.05; P<.001) compared with non-Hispanic individuals. Older individuals (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.06; P<.001), individuals with less than a high school diploma (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.79-5.53; P<.001), and individuals with a household income of less than US $20,000 (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.88-4.11; P<.001) had significantly higher odds of indicating that they were uncomfortable with a computer. CONCLUSIONS: The most common barriers to patient portal adoption are preference for in-person communication, not having a need for the patient portal, and feeling uncomfortable with computers, which are barriers that are modifiable and can be intervened upon. Patient characteristics can help predict which patients are most likely to experience certain barriers to patient portal adoption. Further research is needed to tailor implementation approaches based on patients' needs and preferences.