BACKGROUND: In designing electronic personal health records (PHRs) and related health technologies, lay perspectives are rarely solicited, and we know little about what individuals want and need. OBJECTIVE: To learn how diverse, primarily lay individuals envision how PHRs and other emerging and future electronic technologies could enhance their care. DESIGN: Qualitative study of eight focus groups with adult consumers, patients, and health professionals. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two adult frequent Internet users who expressed interest in health-related matters and represented diverse populations and a broad demographic range. MEASUREMENTS: Focus group transcripts were analyzed qualitatively, using behavioral and grounded theory, employing an immersion/crystallization approach. MAIN RESULTS: Individuals expect technology to transform their interactions with the health-care system. Participants want computers to bring them customized health information and advice: "I want the computer to know who I am." They desire unfettered access to their health record: "I don't know if I want to read [my entire record], but I want to have it." They expect home monitors and other technologies will communicate with clinicians, increasing efficiency and quality of life for patients and providers. Finally, especially for the chronically and acutely ill, privacy is of far less concern to patients than to health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants have dynamic ideas about how information and related technologies could improve personal health management. Their perspectives, largely absent from the medical literature, provide insights that health professionals may lack. Including a diverse array of individuals throughout the process of designing new technologies will strengthen and shape their evolution.
BACKGROUND: In designing electronic personal health records (PHRs) and related health technologies, lay perspectives are rarely solicited, and we know little about what individuals want and need. OBJECTIVE: To learn how diverse, primarily lay individuals envision how PHRs and other emerging and future electronic technologies could enhance their care. DESIGN: Qualitative study of eight focus groups with adult consumers, patients, and health professionals. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two adult frequent Internet users who expressed interest in health-related matters and represented diverse populations and a broad demographic range. MEASUREMENTS: Focus group transcripts were analyzed qualitatively, using behavioral and grounded theory, employing an immersion/crystallization approach. MAIN RESULTS: Individuals expect technology to transform their interactions with the health-care system. Participants want computers to bring them customized health information and advice: "I want the computer to know who I am." They desire unfettered access to their health record: "I don't know if I want to read [my entire record], but I want to have it." They expect home monitors and other technologies will communicate with clinicians, increasing efficiency and quality of life for patients and providers. Finally, especially for the chronically and acutely ill, privacy is of far less concern to patients than to health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants have dynamic ideas about how information and related technologies could improve personal health management. Their perspectives, largely absent from the medical literature, provide insights that health professionals may lack. Including a diverse array of individuals throughout the process of designing new technologies will strengthen and shape their evolution.
Authors: Adam Darkins; Patricia Ryan; Rita Kobb; Linda Foster; Ellen Edmonson; Bonnie Wakefield; Anne E Lancaster Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Andrea Hassol; James M Walker; David Kidder; Kim Rokita; David Young; Steven Pierdon; Deborah Deitz; Sarah Kuck; Eduardo Ortiz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-08-06 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Erica L Mayer; Adrienne B Gropper; Bridget A Neville; Ann H Partridge; Danielle B Cameron; Eric P Winer; Craig C Earle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Renée R Shield; Roberta E Goldman; David A Anthony; Nina Wang; Richard J Doyle; Jeffrey Borkan Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Shireesha Dhanireddy; Jan Walker; Lisa Reisch; Natalia Oster; Thomas Delbanco; Joann G Elmore Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Tom Delbanco; Jan Walker; Sigall K Bell; Jonathan D Darer; Joann G Elmore; Nadine Farag; Henry J Feldman; Roanne Mejilla; Long Ngo; James D Ralston; Stephen E Ross; Neha Trivedi; Elisabeth Vodicka; Suzanne G Leveille Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: D Keith McInnes; Julie A Brown; Ron D Hays; Patricia Gallagher; James D Ralston; Mildred Hugh; Michael Kanter; Carl A Serrato; Carol Cosenza; John Halamka; Lin Ding; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Shira H Fischer; Daniel David; Bradley H Crotty; Meghan Dierks; Charles Safran Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Susan S Woods; Erin Schwartz; Anais Tuepker; Nancy A Press; Kim M Nazi; Carolyn L Turvey; W Paul Nichol Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Christina Zarcadoolas; Wendy L Vaughon; Sara J Czaja; Joslyn Levy; Maxine L Rockoff Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 5.428