The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 137 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patient portals (ie, electronic personal health records tethered to institutional electronic health records) are recognized as a promising mechanism to support greater patient engagement, yet questions remain about how health care leaders, policy makers, and designers can encourage adoption of patient portals and what factors might contribute to sustained utilization. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this state of the science review are to (1) present the definition, background, and how current literature addresses the encouragement and support of patient engagement through the patient portal, and (2) provide a summary of future directions for patient portal research and development to meaningfully impact patient engagement. METHODS: We reviewed literature from 2006 through 2014 in PubMed, Ovid Medline, and PsycInfo using the search terms "patient portal" OR "personal health record" OR "electronic personal health record". Final inclusion criterion dictated that studies report on the patient experience and/or ways that patients may be supported to make competent health care decisions and act on those decisions using patient portal functionality. RESULTS: We found 120 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Based on the research questions, explicit and implicit aims of the studies, and related measures addressed, the studies were grouped into five major topics (patient adoption, provider endorsement, health literacy, usability, and utility). We discuss the findings and conclusions of studies that address the five topical areas. CONCLUSIONS: Current research has demonstrated that patients' interest and ability to use patient portals is strongly influenced by personal factors such age, ethnicity, education level, health literacy, health status, and role as a caregiver. Health care delivery factors, mainly provider endorsement and patient portal usability also contribute to patient's ability to engage through and with the patient portal. Future directions of research should focus on identifying specific populations and contextual considerations that would benefit most from a greater degree of patient engagement through a patient portal. Ultimately, adoption by patients and endorsement by providers will come when existing patient portal features align with patients' and providers' information needs and functionality.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, it is shown that a greater knowledge of essential adjustments in health care provider workflow, roles, and responsibilities is needed [29].”
From Lessons Learned From a Living Lab on the Broad Adoption of eHealth in Primary Health Care (2018) · cites this paper as [29]
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
Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems.
Kushniruk, A. W., & Patel, V. L. (2004) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2004.01.003 · Cited by 760
Green, B. B. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.24.2857 · Cited by 653
Electronic Patient Portals: Evidence on Health Outcomes, Satisfaction, Efficiency, and Attitudes
Goldzweig, C. L., Orshansky, G., Paige, N. M., Towfigh, A., Haggstrom, D. A., Miake-Lye, I. M., Beroes, J. M., & Shekelle, P. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-10-201311190-00006 · Cited by 469
Sarkar, U., Karter, A. J., Liu, J. Y., Adler, N. E., Nguyen, R., Lopez, A., & Schillinger, D. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.006015 · Cited by 428
Use of an Electronic Patient Portal Among Disadvantaged Populations
Ancker, J., Barrón, Y., Rockoff, M. L., Hauser, D., Pichardo, M., Szerencsy, A., & Calman, N. (2011) · Journal of general internal medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1749-y · Cited by 381
Sarkar, U., Karter, A. J., Liu, J. Y., Adler, N. E., Nguyen, R., López, A., & Schillinger, D. (2010) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.499988 · Cited by 367
Early Experiences with Personal Health Records
Halamka, J. D., Mandl, K. D., & Tang, P. C. (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2562 · Cited by 355
Greenhalgh, T., Hinder, S., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., & Russell, J. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c5814 · Cited by 343
Guy, R., Hocking, J. S., Wand, H. C., Stott, S., Ali, H., & Kaldor, J. M. (2011) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01342.x · Cited by 332
Disparities in Enrollment and Use of an Electronic Patient Portal
Goel, M. S., Brown, T. L., Williams, A., Hasnain‐Wynia, R., Thompson, J. A., & Baker, D. W. (2011) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1728-3 · Cited by 320
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Keselman, Alla, 2007, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 399
- Wald, Jonathan S, 2007, Stud Health Technol Inform, 129, 18
- Wald, Jonathan S, 2010, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2010, 837
- Jung, C, 2011, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2011, 1070
- Noblin, Alice M, 2012, Perspect Health Inf Manag, 9, 1
- Butler, Jorie M, 2013, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2013, 152
- Gu, Yulong, 2013, Stud Health Technol Inform, 188, 46
- Abramson, Erika L, 2014, Am J Manag Care, 20, 287
- Lober, W B, 2006, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 514
- Yau, Gary L, 2011, Can Fam Physician, 57, e178
- Witry, Matthew J, 2010, Perspect Health Inf Manag, 7, 1d
- Monkman, Helen, 2013, Stud Health Technol Inform, 183, 179
- Schnipper, Jeffrey L, 2008, Inform Prim Care, 16, 147
- Kuziemsky, Craig E, 2014, Stud Health Technol Inform, 205, 905
- Kim, Eung-Hun, 2007, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 409
- Bergman, David A, 2008, Perspect Health Inf Manag, 5, 13
- Wald, Jonathan S, 2009, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2009, 678
- 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000723 · DOI
- Barron, Jeremy, 2014, Stud Health Technol Inform, 202, 181
- Borbolla, Damian, 2014, Stud Health Technol Inform, 205, 348
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: the emergence of a digital “advanced use” divide
Adler-Milstein, J., Holmgren, A. J., Kralovec, P., Worzala, C., Searcy, T., & Patel, V. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx080 · Cited by 392
Gordon, N. P., & Hornbrook, M. C. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5105 · Cited by 383
Dendere, R., Slade, C., Burton‐Jones, A., Sullivan, C. M., Staib, A. N., & Janda, M. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12779 · Cited by 310
Patients' perspectives on digital health tools
Madanian, S., Nakarada‐Kordic, I., Reay, S., & Chetty, T. (2023) · PEC Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100171 · Cited by 282
Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review
Grossman, L. V., Masterson Creber, R. M., Benda, N. C., Wright, D., Vawdrey, D. K., & Ancker, J. S. (2019) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz023 · Cited by 251
Metadata
- Authors
- Irizarry, T., DeVito Dabbs, A., & Curran, C. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Irizarry, Taya
- ORCID
- Irizarry, Taya
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2015-06-23
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e148
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4526960
- OpenAlex
- W1884436451
- Cited by
- 732
- References
- 137
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 6.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute of Nursing Research (2NR008857, T32NR008857)
- 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 › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- patient portals, patient engagement, electronic personal health records, patient adoption, health literacy, usability, patient decision-making, caregiver role, patient information needs
- MeSH terms
- Age Factors, Educational Status, Ethnicity, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Status, Humans, Patient Participation, Research, Caregivers, Health Records, Personal, Health Literacy, 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
