Dataset Information

Patient and healthcare provider views on a patient-reported outcomes portal.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Over the past decade, public interest in managing health-related information for personal understanding and self-improvement has rapidly expanded. This study explored aspects of how patient-provided health information could be obtained through an electronic portal and presented to inform and engage patients while also providing information for healthcare providers.

Methods

We invited participants using ResearchMatch from 2 cohorts: (1) self-reported healthy volunteers (no medical conditions) and (2) individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of anxiety and/or depression. Participants used a secure web application (dashboard) to complete the PROMIS® domain survey(s) and then complete a feedback survey. A community engagement studio with 5 healthcare providers assessed perspectives on the feasibility and features of a portal to collect and display patient provided health information. We used bivariate analyses and regression analyses to determine differences between cohorts.

Results

A total of 480 participants completed the study (239 healthy, 241 anxiety and/or depression). While participants from the tw2o cohorts had significantly different PROMIS scores (p < .05), both cohorts welcomed the concept of a patient-centric dashboard, saw value in sharing results with their healthcare provider, and wanted to view results over time. However, factors needing consideration before widespread use included personalization for the patient and their health issues, integration with existing information (eg electronic health records), and integration into clinician workflow.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrated a strong desire among healthy people, patients with chronic diseases, and healthcare providers for a self-assessment portal that can collect patient-reported outcome metrics and deliver personalized feedback.

SUBMITTER: Cronin RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6213079 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient and healthcare provider views on a patient-reported outcomes portal.

Cronin Robert M RM Conway Douglas D Condon David D Jerome Rebecca N RN Byrne Daniel W DW Harris Paul A PA

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20181101 11

<h4>Background</h4>Over the past decade, public interest in managing health-related information for personal understanding and self-improvement has rapidly expanded. This study explored aspects of how patient-provided health information could be obtained through an electronic portal and presented to inform and engage patients while also providing information for healthcare providers.<h4>Methods</h4>We invited participants using ResearchMatch from 2 cohorts: (1) self-reported healthy volunteers ( ...[more]

PMID: 30239733

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to monitor patients during treatment. Healthcare provider preferences for individualized vs. standardized PROs have been understudied.MethodsThis study surveyed oncology and mental health providers to compare attitudes towards individualized and standardized PROs. We have developed a method for individualizing PROs, called precision PROs, and the survey specifically assessed preferences for this method. We compared attitudes and preferences by provider type and by whether respondents were current or never users of PROs.ResultsOncology providers expressed more positive attitudes for standardized PROs in treatment planning compared to mental health providers (F(1,440) = 5.978, p = 0.015). The interaction between provider type (oncology vs. mental health) and type of PRO (individualized vs. standardized) was not significant for the attitudes about the clinical utility of PROs (p = 0.709). When directly asked about the precision PRO approach, oncologists were less likely to prefer standardized items (OR = 0.478, p = 0.001) or have no preference (OR = 0.445, p = 0.007) to the precision PRO approach when compared to mental health providers. Qualitative analyses suggested standardized PROs may be simpler or easier to understand whereas individualized PROs better capture patient variability and the unique aspects of each patient's condition. Some mental health providers expressed reticence about letting patients choose how to tailor PROs. Never users of PROs reported more positive attitudes towards individualized measures than standardized measures whereas current users of PROs did not have a difference in attitudes (p = 0.010). User status was mostly unrelated to preferences.ConclusionResults suggest that healthcare provider preference for individualized PROs may differ by medical specialty. How PROs are tailored may need to differ by discipline. This is particularly important given that previous research showing a preference for individualized PROs over standardized was conducted with psychotherapists. Further research on patient preferences for individualized and standardized PROs is warranted as is research on the clinical utility of individualized PROs such as the precision PRO approach.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess quality-of-care from patients' perspectives. PREMs can be used to enhance patient-centered care and facilitate patient engagement in care. With increasing quality improvement studies in clinical practice, the use of PREMs has surged. As a result, knowledge about stakeholder experiences of using PREMs to assess quality of care across diverse clinical settings is needed to inform PREM implementation efforts. To address this, this review examines the qualitative literature on patient and healthcare provider experiences of using PREMs in clinical practice.MethodsMedline, Embase and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to May 2021. Additional searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles were performed. Retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and 25% cross-checked by a second reviewer across all stages of the review. Full texts meeting eligibility criteria were appraised against the COREQ checklist for quality assessment and thematic analysis was used to analyze textual data extracted from the results.ResultsElectronic searches identified 2683 records, of which 20 studies met eligibility criteria. Extracted data were synthesized into six themes: facilitators to PREM implementation; barriers to PREM implementation; healthcare providers' perspectives towards using PREMs; patients' perspectives towards using PREMs; advantages of using PREMs in clinical practice; limitations and practical considerations to reduce resistance of PREM usage. The primary factors facilitating and impeding the use of PREMs include organizational-, staff- and patient-related factors.ConclusionResults can be used to guide the usage and implementation of PREMs in clinical settings by addressing the identified barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PREMs. Results around facilitators to PREM implementation and practical considerations could also promote appropriate use of PREMs by healthcare providers, helping to improve practice and the quality of care based on patient feedback.

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems are increasingly offering patient portals as tools for patients to access their health information with the goal of improving engagement in care. However, understanding health care providers' perspectives on patient portal implementation is crucial.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand health care providers' experiences of implementing the MyChart patient portal, perspectives about its impact on patient care, clinical practice, and workload, and opportunities for improvement.MethodsUsing an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, we conducted a web-based questionnaire and semistructured individual interviews with health care providers at a large Canadian community hospital, 6 months after MyChart was first offered to patients. We explored perspectives about the impact of MyChart on clinical practice, workload, and patient care. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.ResultsIn total, 261 health care providers completed the web-based questionnaire, and 15 also participated in interviews. Participants agreed that patients should have access to their health information through MyChart and identified its benefits such as patients gaining a greater understanding of their own health, which could improve patient safety (160/255, 62%). While many health care providers agreed that MyChart supported better patient care (108/258, 42%), there was limited understanding of features available to patients and expectations for integrating MyChart into clinical routines. Concerns were raised about the potential negative impacts of MyChart on patient-provider relationships because sensitive notes or results could be inappropriately interpreted (109/251, 43%), and a potential increase in workload if additional portal features were introduced. Suggested opportunities for improvement included support for both patients and health care providers to learn about MyChart and establishing guidelines for health care providers on how to communicate information available in MyChart to patients.ConclusionsWhile health care providers acknowledged that MyChart improved patients' access to health information, its implementation introduced some friction and concerns. To reduce the risk of these challenges, health systems can benefit from engaging health care providers early to identify effective patient portal implementation strategies.

Project description:Background: Many medical centers are beginning to use OpenNotes (ON) to empower patients. However, there is a lack of literature reviewing the ON system in dermatology and any differences in attitudes between men and women. If so, it is uncertain what concerns are more important to female patients. Given the complex lexicon of notes in dermatology, the outpatient setting of dermatology practices, and the often-complex nature of treatment regimens, investigation was merited. Objective: This paper aimed to evaluate a survey of dermatologic patients on their attitudes toward the ON system. Methods: From July through October 2015, 333 dermatologic patients at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center completed an anonymous, voluntary, 25-question survey of the ON system while in the waiting room. Approximately 60% of respondents were female and 40% were male. Respondents were older, with 27% age >65 years, 21% between 56 and 65 years, 16% between 46 and 55 years, 17% between 36 and 45 years, 14% between 26 and 35 years, and 4% between 18 and 25 years. Eighty-five percent of respondents were white, and 73% had, at minimum, graduated from college. Results: Patient response to ON was positive, with 93% agreeing ON is a good idea. Of the patients who accessed their own notes (69% of respondents), 99.6% desired continued access. In addition, 85.6% of patients felt ON allowed them to control their own health, and 70% reported increased confidence in their dermatologist. Nineteen percent of respondents thought ON presented a privacy concern. Conclusion: The results showed that female patients strongly desire access to their medical records, but concerns about privacy and security exist. Preliminary analysis by a statistician did not find any statistically significant variations between men and women within the results of the survey. Due to the wide agreement in responses, it is unlikely that there are significant differences in opinion on ON between men and women.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes are an important emerging metric increasingly utilised in clinical, research and registry settings. These outcomes, while vital, are underutilised and require refinement for the specific patient population of those undergoing bariatric surgery. This study aimed to investigate and compare how pre-surgical patients, post-surgical patients, and healthcare practitioners evaluate patient-reported outcomes of bariatric surgery to identify outcomes that are considered most important.MethodsA modified Delphi survey was distributed to patients pre- and post-surgery, and to a variety of healthcare practitioners involved in bariatric care. Across two rounds, participants were asked to rate a variety of physical and psychosocial outcomes of bariatric surgery from 0 (Not Important) to 10 (Extremely Important). Outcomes rated 8-10 by at least 70% of participants were considered highly important (prioritised). The highest-rated outcomes were compared between the three groups as well as between medical and allied health practitioner subgroups.Results20 pre-surgical patients, 95 post-surgical patients, and 28 healthcare practitioners completed both rounds of the questionnaire. There were 58 outcomes prioritised, with 21 outcomes (out of 90, 23.3%) prioritised by all three groups, 13 (14.4%) by two groups, and 24 (26.7%) prioritised by a single group or subgroup. Unanimously prioritised outcomes included 'Co-morbidities', 'General Physical Health', 'Overall Quality of Life' and 'Overall Mental Health'. Discordant outcomes included 'Fear of Weight Regain', 'Suicidal Thoughts', 'Addictive Behaviours', and 'Experience of Stigma or Discrimination'.ConclusionWhile there was considerable agreement between stakeholder groups on many outcomes, there remain several outcomes with discordant importance valuations that must be considered. In particular, healthcare practitioners prioritised 20 outcomes that were not prioritised by patients, emphasising the range of priorities across stakeholder groups. Future work will consider these priorities to ensure resulting measures encompass all important outcomes and are beneficial and valid for end users.

Dataset Information

Patient and healthcare provider views on a patient-reported outcomes portal.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patient and healthcare provider views on a patient-reported outcomes portal.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets