OBJECTIVE: To examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific aims were to examine how outcomes are produced, and how variations in outcomes can be explained. METHODS: We used a realist review method, which aims to describe how 'an intervention works, for whom, and in what circumstances' by analyzing patterns between context, mechanism, and outcomes. We reviewed 32 evaluation studies of patient portals published since 2003. RESULTS: The reviewed evaluations indicate that as a complement to existing health services, patient portals can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes, patient behavior, and experiences. Four different mechanisms are reported to yield the reported outcome improvements. These are patient insight into personal health information, activation of information, interpersonal continuity of care, and service convenience. The vast majority of evaluations were conducted in integrated health service networks in the USA, and we detected no substantial variation in outcomes across these networks. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Patient portals may impact clinical outcomes and health service delivery through multiple mechanisms. Given the relative uniformity of evaluation contexts, we were not able to detect patterns in how patient portals work in different contexts. Nonetheless, it appears from the overwhelming proportion of patient portal evaluations coming from integrated health service networks, that these networks provide more fertile contexts for patient portals to be effective. To improve the understanding of how patient portals work, future evaluations of patient portals should capture information about mechanisms and context that influence their outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific aims were to examine how outcomes are produced, and how variations in outcomes can be explained. METHODS: We used a realist review method, which aims to describe how 'an intervention works, for whom, and in what circumstances' by analyzing patterns between context, mechanism, and outcomes. We reviewed 32 evaluation studies of patient portals published since 2003. RESULTS: The reviewed evaluations indicate that as a complement to existing health services, patient portals can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes, patient behavior, and experiences. Four different mechanisms are reported to yield the reported outcome improvements. These are patient insight into personal health information, activation of information, interpersonal continuity of care, and service convenience. The vast majority of evaluations were conducted in integrated health service networks in the USA, and we detected no substantial variation in outcomes across these networks. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:Patient portals may impact clinical outcomes and health service delivery through multiple mechanisms. Given the relative uniformity of evaluation contexts, we were not able to detect patterns in how patient portals work in different contexts. Nonetheless, it appears from the overwhelming proportion of patient portal evaluations coming from integrated health service networks, that these networks provide more fertile contexts for patient portals to be effective. To improve the understanding of how patient portals work, future evaluations of patient portals should capture information about mechanisms and context that influence their outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Sapna Shah; Sapna S Shah; David C Kaelber; David Charles Kaelber; Adam Vincent; Eric C Pan; Eric Pan; Douglas Johnston; Blackford Middleton Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2008-11-06
Authors: Rachel Hess; Cindy L Bryce; Suzanne Paone; Gary Fischer; Kathleen M McTigue; Ellen Olshansky; Susan Zickmund; Katharine Fitzgerald; Linda Siminerio Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Beverly B Green; Andrea J Cook; James D Ralston; Paul A Fishman; Sheryl L Catz; James Carlson; David Carrell; Lynda Tyll; Eric B Larson; Robert S Thompson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Richard W Grant; Jonathan S Wald; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Tejal K Gandhi; Eric G Poon; E John Orav; Deborah H Williams; Lynn A Volk; Blackford Middleton Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-09-08
Authors: David C Kaelber; Ashish K Jha; Douglas Johnston; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Wouter S Tuil; Chris M Verhaak; Didi D M Braat; Pieter F de Vries Robbé; Jan A M Kremer Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Terese Otte-Trojel; Antoinette de Bont; Thomas G Rundall; Joris van de Klundert Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Ellen S O'Meara; Jennifer S Haas; Christoph I Lee; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Tracy Onega Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Rachel H DeMeester; Fanny Y Lopez; Jennifer E Moore; Scott C Cook; Marshall H Chin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Jonathan D Darer; Andrea Berger; Deserae Clarke; Jamie A Green; Rebecca A Stametz; Tom Delbanco; Jan Walker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497