OBJECTIVES: Some patients lack regular computer access and experience a digital divide that causes them to miss internet-based health innovations. The diffusion of smartphones has increased internet access across the socioeconomic spectrum, and increasing the channels through which patients can access their personal health records (PHRs) could help bridge the divide in PHR use. We examined PHR use through a computer-based Web browser or mobile device. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional historical cohort analysis. METHODS: Among adult patients in the diabetes registry of an integrated healthcare delivery system, we studied the devices used to access their PHR during 2016. RESULTS: Among 267,208 patients with diabetes, 68.1% used the PHR in 2016; 60.6% of all log-ins were via computer and 39.4% were via mobile device. Overall, 63.9% used it from both a computer and mobile device, 29.6% used only a computer, and 6.5% used only a mobile device. After adjustment, patients who were black, Hispanic, or Asian; lived in lower socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods; or had lower engagement were all significantly more likely to use the PHR only from a mobile device (P <.05). Patients using the PHR only via mobile device used it less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile-ready PHRs may increase access among patients facing a digital divide in computer use, disproportionately reaching racial/ethnic minorities and lower SES patients. Nonetheless, even with a mobile-optimized and app-accessible PHR, differences in PHR use by race/ethnicity and SES remain. Continued efforts are needed to increase equitable access to PHRs among patients with chronic conditions.
OBJECTIVES: Some patients lack regular computer access and experience a digital divide that causes them to miss internet-based health innovations. The diffusion of smartphones has increased internet access across the socioeconomic spectrum, and increasing the channels through which patients can access their personal health records (PHRs) could help bridge the divide in PHR use. We examined PHR use through a computer-based Web browser or mobile device. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional historical cohort analysis. METHODS: Among adult patients in the diabetes registry of an integrated healthcare delivery system, we studied the devices used to access their PHR during 2016. RESULTS: Among 267,208 patients with diabetes, 68.1% used the PHR in 2016; 60.6% of all log-ins were via computer and 39.4% were via mobile device. Overall, 63.9% used it from both a computer and mobile device, 29.6% used only a computer, and 6.5% used only a mobile device. After adjustment, patients who were black, Hispanic, or Asian; lived in lower socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods; or had lower engagement were all significantly more likely to use the PHR only from a mobile device (P <.05). Patients using the PHR only via mobile device used it less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile-ready PHRs may increase access among patients facing a digital divide in computer use, disproportionately reaching racial/ethnic minorities and lower SES patients. Nonetheless, even with a mobile-optimized and app-accessible PHR, differences in PHR use by race/ethnicity and SES remain. Continued efforts are needed to increase equitable access to PHRs among patients with chronic conditions.
Authors: Terhilda Garrido; Michael Kanter; Di Meng; Marianne Turley; Jian Wang; Valerie Sue; Luther Scott Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2015-02-01 Impact factor: 2.229
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: Mita Sanghavi Goel; Tiffany L Brown; Adam Williams; Romana Hasnain-Wynia; Jason A Thompson; David W Baker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Takahiro Higashi; Neil S Wenger; John L Adams; Constance Fung; Martin Roland; Elizabeth A McGlynn; David Reeves; Steven M Asch; Eve A Kerr; Paul G Shekelle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Steven M Christiansen; Deanna Kurz; Diane K King; Tim Woolley; Andrew J Faber; Paul A Estabrooks; Lisa Strycker; Deborah Toobert; Jennifer Dickman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Stephanie L Shimada; Jeroan J Allison; Amy K Rosen; Hua Feng; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Kelvin K Pho; Rong Lu; Samantha Gates; Jennifer Cai; Donglu Xie; Yang Xie; Simon J Craddock Lee; David E Gerber Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-02
Authors: Sarah S Nouri; Julia Adler-Milstein; Crishyashi Thao; Prasad Acharya; Jill Barr-Walker; Urmimala Sarkar; Courtney Lyles Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Stephanie L Fitzpatrick; Meghan Mayhew; Chris L Catlin; Alison Firemark; Inga Gruß; Denis B Nyongesa; Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti; Andreea M Rawlings; David H Smith; Ning Smith; Victor J Stevens; William M Vollmer; Stephen P Fortmann Journal: Perm J Date: 2021-12-13
Authors: Ruth A Bush; Vijaya M Vemulakonda; Andrew C Richardson; Sara J Deakyne Davies; George J Chiang Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Nicholas T Conway; Michael Bluett; Cathy Shields; Andrew Taylor; Deborah J Wake; Scott G Cunningham Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-04-17
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Leah L Zullig; Eric A Dedert; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Timothy W Brearly; Giselle Raitz; Suchita Shah Sata; John D Whited; Hayden B Bosworth; Adelaide M Gordon; Avishek Nagi; John W Williams; Jennifer M Gierisch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 6.473