Cited by 42Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationElectronic Health Records SystemsTechnology Use by Older Adults

Dual Use of a Patient Portal and Clinical Video Telehealth by Veterans with Mental Health Diagnoses: Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Analysis

Open access
Abel, Erica A, Shimada, Stephanie L, Wang, Karen, Ramsey, Christine, Skanderson, Melissa, Erdos, Joseph, Godleski, Linda, Houston, Thomas K +1 more·2018·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Access to mental health care is challenging. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been addressing these challenges through technological innovations including the implementation of Clinical Video Telehealth, two-way interactive and synchronous videoconferencing between a provider and a patient, and an electronic patient portal and personal health record, My HealtheVet. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe early adoption and use of My HealtheVet and Clinical Video Telehealth among VHA users with mental health diagnoses. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of early My HealtheVet adoption and Clinical Video Telehealth engagement among veterans with one or more mental health diagnoses who were VHA users from 2007 to 2012. We categorized veterans into four electronic health (eHealth) technology use groups: My HealtheVet only, Clinical Video Telehealth only, dual users who used both, and nonusers of either. We examined demographic characteristics and mental health diagnoses by group. We explored My HealtheVet feature use among My HealtheVet adopters. We then explored predictors of My HealtheVet adoption, Clinical Video Telehealth engagement, and dual use using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2.17 million veterans with one or more mental health diagnoses, 1.51% (32,723/2,171,325) were dual users, and 71.72% (1,557,218/2,171,325) were nonusers of both My HealtheVet and Clinical Video Telehealth. African American and Latino patients were significantly less likely to engage in Clinical Video Telehealth or use My HealtheVet compared with white patients. Low-income patients who met the criteria for free care were significantly less likely to be My HealtheVet or dual users than those who did not. The odds of Clinical Video Telehealth engagement and dual use decreased with increasing age. Women were more likely than men to be My HealtheVet or dual users but less likely than men to be Clinical Video Telehealth users. Patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were significantly less likely to be My HealtheVet or dual users than those with other mental health diagnoses (odds ratio, OR 0.50, CI 0.47-0.53 and OR 0.75, CI 0.69-0.80, respectively). Dual users were younger (53.08 years, SD 13.7, vs 60.11 years, SD 15.83), more likely to be white, and less likely to be low-income than the overall cohort. Although rural patients had 17% lower odds of My HealtheVet adoption compared with urban patients (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80-0.87), they were substantially more likely than their urban counterparts to engage in Clinical Video Telehealth and dual use (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.95-3.09 for Clinical Video Telehealth and OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.81-2.47 for dual use). CONCLUSIONS: During this study (2007-2012), use of these technologies was low, leaving much potential for growth. There were sociodemographic disparities in access to My HealtheVet and Clinical Video Telehealth and in dual use of these technologies. There was also variation based on types of mental health diagnosis. More research is needed to ensure that these and other patient-facing eHealth technologies are accessible and effectively used by all vulnerable patients.

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 · 10.2196/11350

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Overall, 8 studies saw an effect of age: 2 studies found that people aged ≤50 years engaged more with interventions than older adults.

    “Overall, 8 studies saw an effect of age: 2 studies found that people aged ≤50 years engaged more with interventions than older adults [66,67].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Results (Models Predicting Adoption; Table 4) show that age was associated with technology use among veterans with mental health diagnoses: those aged 60 or older had lower odds of portal adoption, video-telehealth engagement, and dual use than those under 40. The paper does not use a ≤50-year cutoff, and its measures are adoption or engagement with these technologies rather than engagement with interventions generally. The eight-study count is the citing paper’s synthesis, not a finding of this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. [7]Institute of Medicine Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century 2001 Washington, DC National Academies Press 25057539

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abel, E. A., Shimada, S. L., Wang, K., Ramsey, C., Skanderson, M., Erdos, J., Godleski, L., Houston, T. K., & Brandt, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • VA Connecticut Healthcare System (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
Corresponding author
Abel, Erica A
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2018-11-07
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
e11350
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890249611
Cited by
42
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Health Services Research and Development
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
patient portals, veterans, access to mental health care, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, racial and ethnic disparities, socioeconomic disparities, gender disparities, age disparities, Veterans Health Administration, mental health diagnoses
MeSH terms
Patient Portals, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Telemedicine, Videoconferencing, Young Adult, Veterans Health

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