OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to identify the demands associated with using electronic personal health records (PHRs) and to evaluate the ability of adults of lower socioeconomic status and low health literacy to use PHRs to perform health management activities. BACKGROUND: PHRs are proliferating in clinical practices and health care organizations. These systems offer the potential of increasing the active involvement of patients in health self-management. However, little is known about the actual usability of these tools for health consumers. METHOD: We used task analysis and health literacy load analysis to identify the cognitive and literacy demands inherent in the use of PHRs and evaluated the usability of three currently available PHR systems with a sample of 54 adults. Participants used the systems to perform tasks related to medication management, interpretation of lab/test results, and health maintenance. Data were also gathered on the participants' perception of the potential value of using a PHR. RESULTS: The results indicated that a majority of the participants had difficulty completing the tasks and needed assistance. There was some variability according to task and PHR system. However, most participants perceived the use of PHRs as valuable. CONCLUSIONS: Although considered a valuable tool by consumers, the use of PHR systems may be challenging for many people. Strategies are needed to enhance the usability of these systems, especially for people with low literacy, low health literacy, or limited technology skills. APPLICATION: The data from this study have implications for the design of PHRs.
OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to identify the demands associated with using electronic personal health records (PHRs) and to evaluate the ability of adults of lower socioeconomic status and low health literacy to use PHRs to perform health management activities. BACKGROUND: PHRs are proliferating in clinical practices and health care organizations. These systems offer the potential of increasing the active involvement of patients in health self-management. However, little is known about the actual usability of these tools for health consumers. METHOD: We used task analysis and health literacy load analysis to identify the cognitive and literacy demands inherent in the use of PHRs and evaluated the usability of three currently available PHR systems with a sample of 54 adults. Participants used the systems to perform tasks related to medication management, interpretation of lab/test results, and health maintenance. Data were also gathered on the participants' perception of the potential value of using a PHR. RESULTS: The results indicated that a majority of the participants had difficulty completing the tasks and needed assistance. There was some variability according to task and PHR system. However, most participants perceived the use of PHRs as valuable. CONCLUSIONS: Although considered a valuable tool by consumers, the use of PHR systems may be challenging for many people. Strategies are needed to enhance the usability of these systems, especially for people with low literacy, low health literacy, or limited technology skills. APPLICATION: The data from this study have implications for the design of PHRs.
Authors: Urmimala Sarkar; Andrew J Karter; Jennifer Y Liu; Nancy E Adler; Robert Nguyen; Andrea López; Dean Schillinger Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Joan F Hilton; Lynsey Barkoff; Olivia Chang; Lindsay Halperin; Neda Ratanawongsa; Urmimala Sarkar; Yan Leykin; Ricardo F Muñoz; David H Thom; James S Kahn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eung-Hun Kim; Anna Stolyar; William B Lober; Anne L Herbaugh; Sally E Shinstrom; Brenda K Zierler; Cheong B Soh; Yongmin Kim Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: James D Ralston; Irl B Hirsch; James Hoath; Mary Mullen; Allen Cheadle; Harold I Goldberg Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 17.152
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
Authors: Lisa V Grossman; Ruth M Masterson Creber; Natalie C Benda; Drew Wright; David K Vawdrey; Jessica S Ancker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Courtney R Lyles; Lina Tieu; Urmimala Sarkar; Stephen Kiyoi; Shobha Sadasivaiah; Mekhala Hoskote; Neda Ratanawongsa; Dean Schillinger Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2019 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Renato F L Azevedo; Dan Morrow; James Graumlich; Ann Willemsen-Dunlap; Mark Hasegawa-Johnson; Thomas S Huang; Kuangxiao Gu; Suma Bhat; Tarek Sakakini; Victor Sadauskas; Donald J Halpin Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Courtney R Lyles; Eugene C Nelson; Susan Frampton; Patricia C Dykes; Anupama G Cemballi; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Emily Pfaff; Adam Lee; Robert Bradford; Jinhee Pae; Clarence Potter; Paul Blue; Patricia Knoepp; Kristie Thompson; Christianne L Roumie; David Crenshaw; Remy Servis; Darren A DeWalt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.497