Patient portals and quality of care: A literature review using the BC Health Quality Matrix (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Electronic patient portals in healthcare are quickly becoming the preference of clinicians, patients, and caregivers alike. In times where the demand for all things to be online appears limitless, it is no surprise that portals are requested when updating health information systems worldwide. However, there are barriers to implementing online portals and many countries are lagging behind in updating their systems. With the interest in increasing investment in online portals by the Canadian public healthcare system, decision makers should be considering whether patient access to medical records through portals and mobile devices provides any changes to quality of care. OBJECTIVE This literature review examines available research in Canada and globally on health-related online portals and their impact on quality of care and patient access. Also examined are examples of different health portals, including issues or barriers to full implementation and utilization in the health sphere. METHODS A preliminary search was completed in May 2019 to examine the impact of patient portals on quality of care. The resources utilized in the first stage of the review included the University of British Columbia and the Western University library databases, Google, and Google Scholar. Parameters for the search included search terms such as patient portals, personal health records, effectiveness, quality, and access. Recent articles were prioritized, and included articles were generally published in the last five years. The authors reviewed 52 articles or article abstracts and 29 were included in the current review. Of the mixture of Canadian and international references, five are systematic reviews, and 18 are original research studies. RESULTS This study reviewed the available literature and found that there are some positive trends on patient portals’ impact on quality of care, with overall inconclusive or neutral results. Emerging evidence has showcased some benefits of implementing electronic health and patient portals to improve the quality of patient care and access to pertinent health records. However, general consensus is that there is limited available literature that is not considered to be outdated and as such, further investigation is required to support any previous findings. CONCLUSIONS As health care related technology develops further, better quality, quantity, and larger-scale studies will be available in evidence-based research databases. As such, a future follow-up literature review would be relevant to re-examine this topic.
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 | 0,011 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,050 | 0,081 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
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 ».