BACKGROUND: Personal health records (PHRs) offer the potential to improve the patient experience and the quality of patient care. However, the "digital divide," the population-level gap in Internet and computer access, may prevent certain groups from accessing the PHR. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a PHR within a northeastern health system. We compared adopters (ie, those activating a PHR account online) with nonadopters (ie, those who see a physician offering the PHR but do not activate an account). We further categorized adopters by intensity of PHR use, measured by number of log-ins and number of messages sent to physicians' practices. RESULTS: As of September 30, 2009, among 75,056 patients, 43% had adopted the PHR since 2002. Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to adopt the PHR compared with whites (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.55; and 0.64; 0.57-0.73, respectively), and those with lower annual income were less likely to adopt the PHR than were those with higher income. Compared with nonadopters, adopters were more likely to have more than 2 comorbidities (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30). Use of an aggressive marketing strategy for PHR enrollment increased adoption nearly 3-fold (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.58-5.40). Intensity of use was best predicted by increasing number of comorbidities, followed by race/ethnicity (whites more than blacks and Hispanics) and insurance status. We found no association between income and log-in frequency or secure messages sent. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing Internet availability, racial/ethnic minority patients adopted a PHR less frequently than white patients, and patients with the lowest annual income adopted a PHR less often than those with higher incomes. Among adopters, however, income did not have an effect on PHR use.
BACKGROUND: Personal health records (PHRs) offer the potential to improve the patient experience and the quality of patient care. However, the "digital divide," the population-level gap in Internet and computer access, may prevent certain groups from accessing the PHR. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a PHR within a northeastern health system. We compared adopters (ie, those activating a PHR account online) with nonadopters (ie, those who see a physician offering the PHR but do not activate an account). We further categorized adopters by intensity of PHR use, measured by number of log-ins and number of messages sent to physicians' practices. RESULTS: As of September 30, 2009, among 75,056 patients, 43% had adopted the PHR since 2002. Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to adopt the PHR compared with whites (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.55; and 0.64; 0.57-0.73, respectively), and those with lower annual income were less likely to adopt the PHR than were those with higher income. Compared with nonadopters, adopters were more likely to have more than 2 comorbidities (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30). Use of an aggressive marketing strategy for PHR enrollment increased adoption nearly 3-fold (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.58-5.40). Intensity of use was best predicted by increasing number of comorbidities, followed by race/ethnicity (whites more than blacks and Hispanics) and insurance status. We found no association between income and log-in frequency or secure messages sent. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing Internet availability, racial/ethnic minority patients adopted a PHR less frequently than white patients, and patients with the lowest annual income adopted a PHR less often than those with higher incomes. Among adopters, however, income did not have an effect on PHR use.
Authors: Mita Sanghavi Goel; Tiffany L Brown; Adam Williams; Andrew J Cooper; Romana Hasnain-Wynia; David W Baker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Gerardo Moreno; Elizabeth H Lin; Eva Chang; Ron L Johnson; Heidi Berthoud; Cam C Solomon; Leo S Morales Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jane Y Zhao; Buer Song; Edwin Anand; Diane Schwartz; Mandip Panesar; Gretchen P Jackson; Peter L Elkin Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Rebecca G Mishuris; Max Stewart; Gemmae M Fix; Thomas Marcello; D Keith McInnes; Timothy P Hogan; Judith B Boardman; Steven R Simon Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Julie Payne-Gagnon; Erik Breton; Jean-Paul Fortin; Lara Khoury; Lisa Dolovich; David Price; David Wiljer; Gillian Bartlett; Norman Archer Journal: Int J Health Policy Manag Date: 2016-07-01
Authors: Adam Schickedanz; David Huang; Andrea Lopez; Edna Cheung; C R Lyles; Tom Bodenheimer; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Carrie A Miller; Deirdre A Shires; Karen Dyer; Scott M Ratliff; Michelle Schreiber Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 2.229