Cited by 251Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityTechnology Use by Older Adults

Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review

Open access
Grossman, Lisa V, Masterson Creber, Ruth M, Benda, Natalie C, Wright, Drew, Vawdrey, David K, Ancker, Jessica S·2019·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Background: More than 100 studies document disparities in patient portal use among vulnerable populations. Developing and testing strategies to reduce disparities in use is essential to ensure portals benefit all populations. Objective: To systematically review the impact of interventions designed to: (1) increase portal use or predictors of use in vulnerable patient populations, or (2) reduce disparities in use. Materials and Methods: A librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Reviews for studies published before September 1, 2018. Two reviewers independently selected English-language research articles that evaluated any interventions designed to impact an eligible outcome. One reviewer extracted data and categorized interventions, then another assessed accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. Results: Out of 18 included studies, 15 (83%) assessed an intervention's impact on portal use, 7 (39%) on predictors of use, and 1 (6%) on disparities in use. Most interventions studied focused on the individual (13 out of 26, 50%), as opposed to facilitating conditions, such as the tool, task, environment, or organization (SEIPS model). Twelve studies (67%) reported a statistically significant increase in portal use or predictors of use, or reduced disparities. Five studies (28%) had high or unclear risk of bias. Conclusion: Individually focused interventions have the most evidence for increasing portal use in vulnerable populations. Interventions affecting other system elements (tool, task, environment, organization) have not been sufficiently studied to draw conclusions. Given the well-established evidence for disparities in use and the limited research on effective interventions, research should move beyond identifying disparities to systematically addressing them at multiple levels.

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/ocz023

Cites

146 of 146 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Landro L. How to get patients to take more control of their medical deci- sions. The Wall Street Journal, 2017.
  2. Volpp KG, Mohta NS. Patient Engagement Survey: Far to Go to Mean- ingful Participation. NEJM Catal. 2016. http://catalyst.nejm.org/patient- engagement-initiatives-survey-meaningful-participation/. Accessed November 10, 2018.
  3. Oliver S, Kavanagh J Caird J, et al. Health promotion, inequalities and young people's health: a systematic review of research. 2008. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
  4. Sharit J, Lisigurski M, Andrade AD, et al. The roles of health literacy, nu- meracy, and graph literacy on the usability of the VA's personal health record by veterans. J Usability Stud 2014; 9 (4): 173-93.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grossman, L. V., Masterson Creber, R. M., Benda, N. C., Wright, D., Vawdrey, D. K., & Ancker, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  • Department of Healthcare Policy & Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2019-04-08
Volume
26
Issue
8-9
Pages
855-870
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2936211750
Cited by
251
References
146
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Library of Medicine (R01LM012964, T15LM007079)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R00NR016275)
  • Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS21816)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
patient portals, vulnerable populations, health disparities, intervention, SEIPS model, health information technology adoption, individual interventions
MeSH terms
Patient Portals, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Access to Records, Vulnerable Populations, Health Records, Personal, Health Literacy, Digital Divide

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