Cited by 49Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The Wired Patient: Patterns of Electronic Patient Portal Use Among Patients With Cardiac Disease or Diabetes

Open access
Jones, James Brian, Weiner, Jonathan P, Shah, Nirav R, Stewart, Walter F·2015·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As providers develop an electronic health record-based infrastructure, patients are increasingly using Web portals to access their health information and participate electronically in the health care process. Little is known about how such portals are actually used. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, our goal was to describe the types and patterns of portal users in an integrated delivery system. METHODS: We analyzed 12 months of data from Web server log files on 2282 patients using a Web-based portal to their electronic health record (EHR). We obtained data for patients with cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes who had a Geisinger Clinic primary care provider and were registered "MyGeisinger" Web portal users. Hierarchical cluster analysis was applied to longitudinal data to profile users based on their frequency, intensity, and consistency of use. User types were characterized by basic demographic data from the EHR. RESULTS: We identified eight distinct portal user groups. The two largest groups (41.98%, 948/2258 and 24.84%, 561/2258) logged into the portal infrequently but had markedly different levels of engagement with their medical record. Other distinct groups were characterized by tracking biometric measures (10.54%, 238/2258), sending electronic messages to their provider (9.25%, 209/2258), preparing for an office visit (5.98%, 135/2258), and tracking laboratory results (4.16%, 94/2258). CONCLUSIONS: There are naturally occurring groups of EHR Web portal users within a population of adult primary care patients with chronic conditions. More than half of the patient cohort exhibited distinct patterns of portal use linked to key features. These patterns of portal access and interaction provide insight into opportunities for electronic patient engagement strategies.

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/jmir.3157

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Nearly half of US adults who owned a wearable device shared data from their device with a health care provider in 2019.

    “nearly half of US adults who owned a wearable device shared data from their device with a health care provider.”

    From Wearable Devices, Health Care Use, and Psychological Well-Being in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Methods describe MyGeisinger patient-portal logs from 2005–2006, and the Results report portal-use patterns among patients with cardiac disease or diabetes. Searches for wearable devices, data sharing with providers, and a 2019 estimate found no passage about the claimed proportion of US adults. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, J. B., Weiner, J. P., Shah, N. R., & Stewart, W. F.
Affiliations
  • Sutter Health (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Jones, James Brian
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2015-02-20
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
e42
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062641341
Cited by
49
References
39
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3
FWCI
14.77
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)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R36 HS016228, 1r36hs016228-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
patient engagement, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic disease, electronic health records, web server log analysis, biometric tracking, patient-provider communication, primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Heart Diseases, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pennsylvania, Primary Health Care, Cohort Studies, Telemedicine, Health Records, Personal

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