Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Explore User Experience, Intent to Use, and Use Behavior of a Patient Portal Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Descriptive Qualitative Study

Open access
Portz, Jennifer Dickman, Bayliss, Elizabeth A, Bull, Sheana, Boxer, Rebecca S, Bekelman, David B, Gleason, Kathy, Czaja, Sara·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research
DOI 10.2196/11604
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient portals offer modern digital tools for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to engage in their health management. However, there are barriers to portal adoption among older adults. Understanding portal user interface and user experience (UI and UX) preferences of older adults with MCC may improve the accessibility, acceptability, and adoption of patient portals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a framework for qualitatively describing the UI and UX, intent to use, and use behaviors among older patients with MCC. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative descriptive study of Kaiser Permanente Colorado's established patient portal, My Health Manager. Older patients (N=24; mean 78.41 (SD 5.4) years) with MCC participated in focus groups. Stratified random sampling was used to maximize age and experience with the portal among participants. The semistructured focus groups used a combination of discussion and think-aloud strategies. A total of 2 coders led the theoretically driven analysis based on the TAM to determine themes related to use behavior, portal usefulness and ease of use, and intent to use. RESULTS: Portal users commonly used email, pharmacy, and lab results sections of the portal. Although, generally, the portal was seen to be easy to use, simple, and quick, challenges related to log-ins, UI design (color and font), and specific features were identified. Such challenges inhibited participants' intent to use the portal entirely or specific features. Participants indicated that the portal improved patient-provider communication, saved time and money, and provided relevant health information. Participants intended to use features that were beneficial to their health management and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are interested in using patient portals and are already taking advantage of the features available to them. We have the opportunity to better engage older adults in portal use but need to pay close attention to key considerations promoting usefulness and ease of 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 · 10.2196/11604

Cites

55 of 55 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

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

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Portz, J. D., Bayliss, E. A., Bull, S., Boxer, R. S., Bekelman, D. B., Gleason, K., & Czaja, S.
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2019-04-08
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
e11604
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/11604
OpenAlex
W2912472800
Cited by
313
References
55
FWCI
78.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

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.