Adoption of a Portal for the Primary Care Management of Pediatric Asthma: A Mixed-Methods Implementation Study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patient portals may improve communication between families of children with asthma and their primary care providers and improve outcomes. However, the feasibility of using portals to collect patient-reported outcomes from families and the barriers and facilitators of portal implementation across diverse pediatric primary care settings have not been established. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the feasibility of using a patient portal for pediatric asthma in primary care, its impact on management, and barriers and facilitators of implementation success. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods implementation study in 20 practices (11 states). Using the portal, parents of children with asthma aged 6-12 years completed monthly surveys to communicate treatment concerns, treatment goals, symptom control, medication use, and side effects. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of portal use with child characteristics and changes to asthma management. Ten clinician focus groups and 22 semistructured parent interviews explored barriers and facilitators of use in the context of an evidence-based implementation framework. RESULTS: We invited 9133 families to enroll and 237 (2.59%) used the portal (range by practice, 0.6%-13.6%). Children of parents or guardians who used the portal were significantly more likely than nonusers to be aged 6-9 years (vs 10-12, P=.02), have mild or moderate/severe persistent asthma (P=.009 and P=.04), have a prescription of a controller medication (P<.001), and have private insurance (P=.002). Portal users with uncontrolled asthma had significantly more medication changes and primary care asthma visits after using the portal relative to the year earlier (increases of 14% and 16%, respectively). Qualitative results revealed the importance of practice organization (coordinated workflows) as well as family (asthma severity) and innovation (facilitated communication and ease of use) characteristics for implementation success. CONCLUSIONS: Although use was associated with higher treatment engagement, our results suggest that achieving widespread portal adoption is unlikely in the short term. Implementation efforts should include workflow redesign and prioritize enrollment of symptomatic children. CLINICALTRIAL: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01966068; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01966068 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6i9iSQkm3).
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
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?
Of the 4 mixed-method studies, 3 raised some concerns.
“and 3 raised some concerns [59,62,75]”
From Effectiveness and Acceptability of Asynchronous Digital Health in Asthma Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [59]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 48
- Authors
- Fiks, A. G., DuRivage, N., Mayne, S. L., Finch, S., Ross, M. E., Giacomini, K., Suh, A., McCarn, B., Brandt, E., Karavite, D., Staton, E. W., Shone, L. P., McGoldrick, V., Noonan, K., Miller, D., Lehmann, C. U., Pace, W. D., & Grundmeier, R. W.
- Affiliations
- American Academy of Pediatrics (US)
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- American Academy of Family Physicians (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fiks, Alexander G
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2016-06-29
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e172
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4945817
- OpenAlex
- W2461236099
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 7.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- 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)
- Funders
- Health Resources and Services Administration (R40MC24943, UA6MC15585)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS022689, P30HS021645)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD059919)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- patient portals, childhood asthma, primary care, implementation barriers and facilitators, portal adoption, parent-reported outcomes, asthma management, controller medications, workflow redesign, family involvement, children aged 6-12
- MeSH terms
- Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Patient Portals, Asthma, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Child, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Parents, Patient Care Planning, Pediatrics, Primary Health Care, Professional-Family Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Logistic Models, Focus Groups, Sick Leave, Anti-Asthmatic Agents
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