Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disparities in registration and use of an online patient portal among older adults: findings from the LitCog cohort

Smith, Samuel G, O’Conor, Rachel, Aitken, William, Curtis, Laura M, Wolf, Michael S, Goel, Mita Sanghavi·2015·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
DOI 10.1093/jamia/ocv025
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To document disparities in registration and use of an online patient portal among older adults. Materials and methods Data from 534 older adults were linked with information from the Northwestern Medicine Electronic Data Warehouse on patient portal registration and use of functions (secure messaging, prescription reauthorizations, checking test results, and monitoring vital statistics). Age, gender, race, education, self-reported chronic conditions, and the Newest Vital Sign health literacy measure were available from cohort data. Results Most patients (93.4%) had a patient portal access code generated for them, and among these 57.5% registered their accounts. In multivariable analyses, White patients (P < .001) and college graduates were more likely to have registered their patient portal (P = .015). Patients with marginal (P = .034) or adequate (P < .001) health literacy were also more likely to have registered their patient portal. Among those registering their accounts, most had messaged their physician (90%), checked a test result (96%), and ordered a reauthorization (55%), but few monitored their vital statistics (11%). Adequate health literacy patients were more likely to have used the messaging function (P = .003) and White patients were more likely to have accessed test results (P = .004). Higher education was consistently associated with prescription reauthorization requests (all P < .05). Discussion Among older American adults, there are stark health literacy, educational, and racial disparities in the registration, and subsequent use of an online patient portal. These population sub-group differences may exacerbate existing health disparities. Conclusions If patient portals are implemented, intervention strategies are needed to monitor and reduce disparities in their use.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocv025

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Goldzweig, 2013, Electronic patient portals: evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency, and attitudes: a systematic review, Ann Intern Med., 159, 677, 10.7326/0003-4819-159-10-201311190-00006 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Tang, 2013, Online disease management of diabetes: engaging and motivating patients online with enhanced resources-diabetes (EMPOWER-D), a randomized controlled trial, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 20, 526, 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001263 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Krist, 2012, Interactive preventive health record to enhance delivery of recommended care: a randomized trial, Ann Fam Med., 10, 312, 10.1370/afm.1383 · DOI
  4. Chrischilles, 2014, Personal health records: a randomized trial of effects on elder medication safety, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 21, 679, 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002284 · DOI
  5. Osborn, 2010, Patient web portals to improve diabetes outcomes: a systematic review, Curr Diab Rep., 10, 422, 10.1007/s11892-010-0151-1 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Turvey, 2014, Blue Button use by patients to access and share health record information using the Department of Veterans Affairs’ online patient portal, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 21, 657, 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002723 · DOI
  7. Ancker, 2011, Use of an electronic patient portal among disadvantaged populations, J Gen Intern Med., 26, 1117, 10.1007/s11606-011-1749-y · DOI · Paper page
  8. Goel, 2011, Disparities in enrollment and use of an electronic patient portal, J Gen Intern Med., 26, 1112, 10.1007/s11606-011-1728-3 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Weppner, 2010, Use of a shared medical record with secure messaging by older patients with diabetes, Diabetes Care., 33, 2314, 10.2337/dc10-1124 · DOI
  10. Jung, 2011, Who are portal users vs. early e-visit adopters? A preliminary analysis, Annu Symp Proc., 2011, 1070
  11. Tom, 2012, Integrated personal health record use: association with parent-reported care experiences, Pediatrics., 130, e183, 10.1542/peds.2011-1786 · DOI
  12. Ralston, 2004, Patients’ experience with a diabetes support programme based on an interactive electronic medical record: qualitative study, BMJ., 328, 1159, 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1159 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Zickmund, 2008, Interest in the use of computerized patient portals: role of the provider-patient relationship, J Gen Intern Med., 23, 20, 10.1007/s11606-007-0273-6 · DOI
  14. Haggstrom, 2011, Lessons learned from usability testing of the VA’s personal health record, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 18, i13, 10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000082 · DOI
  15. Smith, 2015, The association between patient activation and accessing online health information: results from a national survey of US adults, Health Expect., 10.1111/hex.12316 · DOI
  16. Mayberry, 2011, Bridging the digital divide in diabetes: family support and implications for health literacy, Diabetes Technol Ther., 13, 1005, 10.1089/dia.2011.0055 · DOI
  17. Sarkar, 2010, The literacy divide: health literacy and the use of an Internet-based patient portal in an integrated health system-results from the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE), J Health Commun., 15, 183, 10.1080/10810730.2010.499988 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Zell, 2014, Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis, Perspect Psychol Sci., 9, 111, 10.1177/1745691613518075 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Wallston, 2014, Psychometric properties of the Brief Health Literacy Screen in clinical practice, J Gen Intern Med., 29, 119, 10.1007/s11606-013-2568-0 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Maat, 2014, A short assessment of health literacy (SAHL) in the Netherlands, BMC Public Health., 14, 990, 10.1186/1471-2458-14-990 · DOI
  21. Baker, 2000, The association between age and health literacy among elderly persons, J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci., 55, S368, 10.1093/geronb/55.6.S368 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Paasche-Orlow, 2005, The prevalence of limited health literacy, J Gen Intern Med., 20, 175, 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40245.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. Wolf, 2012, Literacy, cognitive function, and health: results of the LitCog Study, J Gen Intern Med., 27, 1300, 10.1007/s11606-012-2079-4 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Weiss, 2005, Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign, Ann Fam Med., 3, 514, 10.1370/afm.405 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Zhang, 2014, Impact of health literacy on medication adherence: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Ann Pharmacother., 48, 741, 10.1177/1060028014526562 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Sarkar, 2014, Use of the refill function through an online patient portal is associated with improved adherence to statins in an integrated health system, Med Care., 52, 194, 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000069 · DOI
  27. Viswanath, 2012, The communications revolution and health inequalities in the 21st Century: implications for cancer control, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev., 21, 1701, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0852 · DOI
  28. Mishuris, 2015, Barriers to patient portal access among veterans receiving home-based primary care: a qualitative study, Health Expect., 10.1111/hex.12199 · DOI
  29. Goel, 2011, Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 18, i8, 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000473 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Wade-Vuturo, 2013, Secure messaging and diabetes management: experiences and perspectives of patient portal users, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 20, 519, 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001253 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lyles, 2013, Patient-provider communication and trust in relation to use of an online patient portal among diabetes patients: The Diabetes and Aging Study, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 20, 1128, 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001567 · DOI
  32. Cho, 2010, Do diabetic veterans use the Internet? Self-reported usage, skills, and interest in using My HealtheVet web portal, Telemed E-Health., 16, 595, 10.1089/tmj.2009.0164 · DOI
  33. Eklund, 2004, Sustains-direct access for the patient to the medical record over the Internet, Stud Health Technol Inform., 100, 182
  34. Bailey, 2014, The availability, functionality, and quality of mobile applications supporting medication self-management, J Am Med Inform Assoc., 21, 542, 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002232 · DOI

Cited by

See all 148

Metadata

Authors
Smith, S. G., O’Conor, R., Aitken, W., Curtis, L. M., Wolf, M. S., & Goel, M. S.
Affiliations
Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2015-04-25
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
888-895
ISSN
  • 1527-974X
  • 1067-5027
DOI
10.1093/jamia/ocv025
Cited by
148
References
8
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disparities in registration and use of an online patient portal among older adults: findings from the LitCog cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jamia/ocv025
The paper
Smith, S. G., O’Conor, R., Aitken, W., Curtis, L. M., Wolf, M. S., & Goel, M. S. (2015). Disparities in registration and use of an online patient portal among older adults: findings from the LitCog cohort. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv025

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.