Oncology Patients’ Experiences With Novel Electronic Patient Portals to Support Care and Treatment: Qualitative Study With Early Users and Nonusers of Portals in Alberta, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: With the current proliferation of clinical information technologies internationally, patient portals are increasingly being adopted in health care. Research, conducted mostly in the United States, shows that oncology patients have a keen interest in portals to gain access to and track comprehensive personal health information. In Canada, patient portals are relatively new and research into their use and effects is currently emerging. There is a need to understand oncology patients' experiences of using eHealth tools and to ground these experiences in local sociopolitical contexts of technology implementation, while seeking to devise strategies to enhance portal benefits. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of oncology patients and their family caregivers when using electronic patient portals to support their health care needs. We focused on how Alberta's unique, 2-portal context shapes experiences of early portal adopters and nonadopters, in anticipation of a province-wide rollout of a clinical information system in oncology facilities. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study employed individual semistructured interviews and demographic surveys with 11 participants. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed thematically. The study was approved by the University of Alberta Human Research Ethics Board. RESULTS: Participants currently living with nonactive cancer discussed an online patient portal as one among many tools (including the internet, phone, videoconferencing, print-out reports) available to make sense of their diagnosis and treatment, maintain connections with health care providers, and engage with information. In the Fall of 2020, most participants had access to 1 of 2 of Alberta's patient portals and identified ways in which this portal was supportive (or not) of their ongoing health care needs. Four major themes, reflecting the participants' broader concerns within which the portal use was occurring, were generated from the data: (1) experiencing doubt and the desire for transparency; (2) seeking to become an informed and active member of the health care team; (3) encountering complexity; and (4) emphasizing the importance of the patient-provider relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Although people diagnosed with cancer and their family caregivers considered an online patient portal as beneficial, they identified several areas that limit how portals support their oncology care. Providers of health care portals are invited to recognize these limitations and work toward addressing them.
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 | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».