OBJECTIVE: Given the strong push to empower patients and make them partners in their health care, we evaluated the current capability of hospitals to offer health information technology that facilitates patient engagement (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an ontology mapping approach, items from the American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement were mapped to defined levels and categories within the PE Framework. Points were assigned for each health information technology function based upon the level of engagement it encompassed to create a PE-information technology (PE-IT) score. Scores were divided into tertiles, and hospital characteristics were compared across tertiles. An ordered logit model was used to estimate the effect of characteristics on the adjusted odds of being in the highest tertile of PE-IT scores. RESULTS: Thirty-six functions were mapped to specific levels and categories of the PE Framework, and adoption of each item ranged from 23.5 to 96.7%. Hospital characteristics associated with being in the highest tertile of PE-IT scores included medium and large bed size (relative to small), nonprofit (relative to government nonfederal), teaching hospital, system member, Midwest and South regions, and urban location. DISCUSSION: Hospital adoption of PE-oriented technology remains varied, suggesting that hospitals are considering how technology can create partnerships with patients. However, PE functionalities that facilitate higher levels of engagement are lacking, suggesting room for improvement. CONCLUSION: While hospitals have reached modest levels of adoption of PE technologies, consistent monitoring of this capacity can identify opportunities to use technology to facilitate engagement.
OBJECTIVE: Given the strong push to empower patients and make them partners in their health care, we evaluated the current capability of hospitals to offer health information technology that facilitates patient engagement (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an ontology mapping approach, items from the American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement were mapped to defined levels and categories within the PE Framework. Points were assigned for each health information technology function based upon the level of engagement it encompassed to create a PE-information technology (PE-IT) score. Scores were divided into tertiles, and hospital characteristics were compared across tertiles. An ordered logit model was used to estimate the effect of characteristics on the adjusted odds of being in the highest tertile of PE-IT scores. RESULTS: Thirty-six functions were mapped to specific levels and categories of the PE Framework, and adoption of each item ranged from 23.5 to 96.7%. Hospital characteristics associated with being in the highest tertile of PE-IT scores included medium and large bed size (relative to small), nonprofit (relative to government nonfederal), teaching hospital, system member, Midwest and South regions, and urban location. DISCUSSION: Hospital adoption of PE-oriented technology remains varied, suggesting that hospitals are considering how technology can create partnerships with patients. However, PE functionalities that facilitate higher levels of engagement are lacking, suggesting room for improvement. CONCLUSION: While hospitals have reached modest levels of adoption of PE technologies, consistent monitoring of this capacity can identify opportunities to use technology to facilitate engagement.
Authors: Ashish K Jha; Catherine M DesRoches; Eric G Campbell; Karen Donelan; Sowmya R Rao; Timothy G Ferris; Alexandra Shields; Sara Rosenbaum; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Terese Otte-Trojel; Antoinette de Bont; Thomas G Rundall; Joris van de Klundert Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Daniel Walker; Arthur Mora; Mollye M Demosthenidy; Nir Menachemi; Mark L Diana Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Terese Otte-Trojel; Antoinette de Bont; Joris van de Klundert; Thomas G Rundall Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Dawn M Klein; Gemmae M Fix; Timothy P Hogan; Steven R Simon; Kim M Nazi; Carolyn L Turvey Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Cynthia J Sieck; Daniel M Walker; Jennifer L Hefner; Jaclyn Volney; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Ruth M Masterson Creber; Lisa V Grossman; Beatriz Ryan; Min Qian; Fernanda C G Polubriaginof; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Mary A Majumder; Juli M Bollinger; Angela G Villanueva; Patricia A Deverka; Barbara A Koenig Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Daniel M Walker; Jennifer L Hefner; Naleef Fareed; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Daniel M Walker; Jennifer L Hefner; Cynthia J Sieck; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Duaa Aljabri; Adrian Dumitrascu; M Caroline Burton; Launia White; Mahmud Khan; Sudha Xirasagar; Ronnie Horner; James Naessens Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Yu Rang Park; Yura Lee; Ji Young Kim; Jeonghoon Kim; Hae Reong Kim; Young-Hak Kim; Woo Sung Kim; Jae-Ho Lee Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 4.773