Cited by 67Electronic Health Records SystemsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Organizational strategies for promoting patient and provider uptake of personal health records

Open access
Wells, Susan, Rozenblum, Ronen, Park, Andrea, Dunn, Marie, Bates, David W·2015·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective To investigate organizational strategies to promote personal health records (PHRs) adoption with a focus on patients with chronic disease. Methods Using semi-structured interviews and a web-based survey, we sampled US health delivery organizations which had implemented PHRs for at least 12 months, were recognized as PHR innovators, and had scored highly in national patient satisfaction surveys. Respondents had lead positions for clinical information systems or high-risk population management. Using grounded theory approach, thematic categories were derived from interviews and coupled with data from the survey. Results Interviews were conducted with 30 informants from 16 identified organizations. Organizational strategies were directed towards raising patient awareness via multimedia communications, and provider acceptance and uptake. Strategies for providers were grouped into six main themes: organizational vision, governance and policies, work process redesign, staff training, information technology (IT) support, and monitoring and incentives. Successful organizations actively communicated their vision, engaged leaders at all levels, had clear governance, planning, and protocols, set targets, and celebrated achievement. The most effective strategy for patient uptake was through health professional encouragement. No specific outreach efforts targeted patients with chronic disease. Registration and PHR activity was routinely measured but without reference to a denominator population or high risk subpopulations. Discussion and conclusion Successful PHR implementation represents a social change and operational project catalyzed by a technical solution. The key to clinician acceptance is making their work easier. However, organizations will likely not achieve the value they want from PHRs unless they target specific populations and monitor their uptake.

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 · 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003055

Cites

36 of 36 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kotter J. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 1996.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wells, S., Rozenblum, R., Park, A., Dunn, M., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Wells, Susan
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2014-10-17
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
213-222
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2110709878
Cited by
67
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6
FWCI
13.98
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
  • Commonwealth Fund
  • National Heart Foundation of New Zealand
  • Health Research Council of New Zealand
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
personal health records, organizational strategy, patient adoption, provider acceptance, chronic disease, clinical information systems, workflow redesign, employee training, patient awareness, health information technology implementation
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Organizational Innovation, Health Records, Personal, Workflow, Electronic Health Records

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