40 Provider Perspectives of a Pediatric Patient Portal
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Primary Subject area Technology Background Patient portals (PPs) can enhance patient engagement and have potential to improve quality of care. However, despite positive perceptions of them by patients and their families, adoption remains low. Since provider promotion of PPs has been shown to impact patient activation and use, understanding providers’ perspectives of PPs is a critical component to successful implementation and impact. Yet there is sparse information, beyond anecdotal reports, about provider opinion, particularly in pediatrics. Objectives We sought to evaluate clinician perceptions regarding the implementation of a PP in a pediatric environment. Design/Methods An electronic survey was sent to all clinicians in a pediatric tertiary health centre. Perceived and expected PP usefulness/usability, impact on clinician-patient/family relationships, workload, security, privacy, and medicolegal risk were evaluated, as well as overall attitude toward PP adoption and interest in future PP functionality. Descriptive statistics were calculated and analyzed for all survey items. Results Four hundred and seventy-three participants (87% female; 71% < age 50 years; 26% physicians) completed the survey (24% response rate) representing a broad range of clinical areas and PP experience. Respondents understood (94%), accepted (92%), and agreed (89%) that PP implementation provided better patient access and care. Only 24% of respondents felt their PP training was adequate. Clinician observations of their patients and families using the PP are displayed in Figure 1. While 86% of clinicians reported that the PP had not changed their overall workload and productivity, 41% felt it would increase as more patients become active. There were minimal PP-related privacy/security concerns, but 24% of respondents felt their medico-legal risk concerns would increase with a PP, as more patients become active. Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported that PP use does not change the quality of care they deliver. Forty-six percent would like their patients to be active on the PP, while 48% were indifferent. Future portal functionality favoured scheduling, questionnaires, and e-visits. Conclusion While the justification for PP implementation is acknowledged, compared to existing literature and current patient experiences, clinicians underestimate their potential value, overestimate their impact on workload and patient anxiety, and feel that they need more training to properly use a portal. These results will guide the next steps in PP optimization locally, and should aid other centres in understanding and addressing clinician concerns, with the goal of improving PP activation and use. Although concerns about PPs cited by providers are largely unfounded, they persist and remain a barrier to optimal leveraging of this tool.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».