Marcy G Antonio1, Olga Petrovskaya2, Francis Lau3. 1. Schools of Health Information Science and Nursing, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our scoping review examined how research on patient portals addresses health equity. Questions guiding our review were: 1) What health equity concepts are addressed in patient portal research-both explicitly and implicitly? 2) What are the gaps? 3) Is the potential for ehealth-related health inequities explicitly acknowledged in studies on patient portals? 4) What novel approaches and interventions to reduce health inequities are tested in patient portal research? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched 4 databases. Search terms included "patient portal" in combination with a comprehensive list of health equity terms relevant in ehealth context. Authors independently reviewed the papers during initial screening and full-text review. We applied the eHealth Equity Framework to develop search terms and analyze the included studies. RESULTS: Based on eHealth Equity Framework categories, the main findings generated from 65 reviewed papers were governance structures, ehealth policies, and cultural and societal values may further inequities; social position of providers and patients introduces differential preferences in portal use; equitable portal implementation can be supported through diverse user-centered design; and intermediary strategies are typically recommended to encourage portal use across populations. DISCUSSION: The predominant focus on barriers in portal use may be inadvertently placing individual responsibility in addressing these barriers on patients already experiencing the greatest health disparities. This approach may mask the impact of the socio-technical-economic-political context on outcomes for different populations. CONCLUSION: To support equitable health outcomes related to patient portals we need to look beyond intermediary initiatives and develop equitable strategies across policy, practice, research, and implementation.
OBJECTIVE: Our scoping review examined how research on patient portals addresses health equity. Questions guiding our review were: 1) What health equity concepts are addressed in patient portal research-both explicitly and implicitly? 2) What are the gaps? 3) Is the potential for ehealth-related health inequities explicitly acknowledged in studies on patient portals? 4) What novel approaches and interventions to reduce health inequities are tested in patient portal research? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched 4 databases. Search terms included "patient portal" in combination with a comprehensive list of health equity terms relevant in ehealth context. Authors independently reviewed the papers during initial screening and full-text review. We applied the eHealth Equity Framework to develop search terms and analyze the included studies. RESULTS: Based on eHealth Equity Framework categories, the main findings generated from 65 reviewed papers were governance structures, ehealth policies, and cultural and societal values may further inequities; social position of providers and patients introduces differential preferences in portal use; equitable portal implementation can be supported through diverse user-centered design; and intermediary strategies are typically recommended to encourage portal use across populations. DISCUSSION: The predominant focus on barriers in portal use may be inadvertently placing individual responsibility in addressing these barriers on patients already experiencing the greatest health disparities. This approach may mask the impact of the socio-technical-economic-political context on outcomes for different populations. CONCLUSION: To support equitable health outcomes related to patient portals we need to look beyond intermediary initiatives and develop equitable strategies across policy, practice, research, and implementation.
Authors: Shireesha Dhanireddy; Jan Walker; Lisa Reisch; Natalia Oster; Thomas Delbanco; Joann G Elmore Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Alejandro Ochoa; Ken Kitayama; Sebastian Uijtdehaage; Michelle Vermillion; Michael Eaton; Felix Carpio; Martin Serota; Michael E Hochman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lina Tieu; Urmimala Sarkar; Dean Schillinger; James D Ralston; Neda Ratanawongsa; Rena Pasick; Courtney R Lyles Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Vivian Welch; Mark Petticrew; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Jennifer O'Neill; Elizabeth Waters; Howard White Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Fernanda C G Polubriaginof; Patrick Ryan; Hojjat Salmasian; Andrea Wells Shapiro; Adler Perotte; Monika M Safford; George Hripcsak; Shaun Smith; Nicholas P Tatonetti; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Christine M Swoboda; Matthew J DePuccio; Naleef Fareed; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Daniel M Walker Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Kelly T Gleason; Susan Peterson; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb; Mariel Villanueva; Taylor Wynn; Paula Bondal; Daniel Berg; Welcome Jerde; David Newman-Toker Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2020-10-05