The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient and Provider Attitudes Toward the Use of Patient Portals for the Management of Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patient portals provide patients with the tools to better manage and understand their health status. However, widespread adoption of patient portals faces resistance from patients and providers for a number of reasons, and there is limited evidence evaluating the characteristics of patient portals that received positive remarks from patients and providers. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review are to identify the shared characteristics of portals that receive favorable responses from patients and providers and to identify the elements that patients and providers believe need improvement. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic search of the CINAHL and PubMed databases to gather data about the use of patient portals in the management of chronic disease. Two reviewers analyzed the articles collected in the search process in order remove irrelevant articles. The authors selected 27 articles to use in the literature review. RESULTS: Results of this systematic review conclude that patient portals show significant improvements in patient self-management of chronic disease and improve the quality of care provided by providers. The most prevalent positive attribute was patient-provider communication, which appeared in 10 of 27 articles (37%). This was noted by both patients and providers. The most prevalent negative perceptions are security (concerns) and user-friendliness, both of which occurred in 11 of 27 articles (41%). The user-friendliness quality was a concern for patients and providers who are not familiar with advanced technology and therefore find it difficult to navigate the patient portal. The high cost of installation and maintenance of a portal system, not surprisingly, deters some providers from implementing such technology into their practice, but this was only mentioned in 3 of the 27 articles (11%). It is possible that the incentives for meaningful use assuage the barrier of cost. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review revealed mixed attitudes from patients and their providers regarding the use of patient portals to manage their chronic disease. The authors suggest that a standard patient portal design providing patients with the resources to understand and manage their chronic conditions will promote the adoption of patient portals in health care organizations.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Nijland, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Kelders, S. M., Brandenburg, B. J., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1603 · Cited by 175 · cited 8×
“A total of 11 out of 27 articles (41%) reported an improvement of patient-provider communication as a result of using a patient portal [4,5,7,15,16,18,19,23-26].”
InfluentialLeveille, S. G., Huang, A., Tsai, S. B., Allen, M., Weingart, S. N., & Iezzoni, L. I. (2009) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181844dd0 · Cited by 89
Barriers Over Time to Full Implementation of Health Information Exchange in the United States
Kruse, C. S., Regier, V., & Rheinboldt, K. T. (2014) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/medinform.3625 · Cited by 67
Self-citationPatient-generated secure messages and eVisits on a patient portal: are patients at risk?
North, F., Crane, S. J., Stroebel, R. J., Cha, S. S., Edell, E. S., & Tulledge-Scheitel, S. M. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001208 · Cited by 66
Cited by
Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review
Scott Kruse, C., Karem, P., Shifflett, K., Vegi, L., Ravi, K., & Brooks, M. (2018) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x16674087 · Cited by 1,735
Kruse, C. S., Bolton, K., & Freriks, G. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3171 · Cited by 379
Self-citationPortz, J. D., Bayliss, E. A., Bull, S., Boxer, R. S., Bekelman, D. B., Gleason, K., & Czaja, S. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11604 · Cited by 313
Carini, E., Villani, L., Pezzullo, A. M., Gentili, A., Barbara, A., Ricciardi, W., & Boccia, S. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/26189 · Cited by 275
Varsi, C., Ekstedt, M., Gammon, D., & Ruland, C. M. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5091 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Kruse, C. S., Argueta, D. A., Lopez, L., & Nair, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2015-02-20
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e40
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050887598
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.30
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient and Provider Attitudes Toward the Use of Patient Portals for the Management of Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2196/jmir.3703
- The paper
- Kruse, C. S., Argueta, D. A., Lopez, L., & Nair, A. (2015). Patient and Provider Attitudes Toward the Use of Patient Portals for the Management of Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3703
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.