New Ways for Patients to Make Sense of Their Electronic Health Record Data Using the Discovery Web Application: Think-Aloud Evaluation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In the United States, patients can access their electronic health record (EHR) data through patient portals. However, current patient portals are mainly focused on a single provider, with very limited data sharing capabilities and put low emphasis on independent sensemaking of the EHR data. This makes it very challenging for patients to switch between different portals and aggregate the data to obtain a complete picture of their medical history and to make sense of it. Owing to this fragmentation, patients are exposed to numerous inconveniences such as medical errors, repeated tests, and limited self-advocacy. OBJECTIVE: To overcome the limitations of EHR patient portals, we designed and developed Discovery-a web-based application that aggregates EHR data from multiple providers and present them to the patient for efficient exploration and sensemaking. To learn how well Discovery meets the patients' sensemaking needs and what features should such applications include, we conducted an evaluation study. METHODS: We conducted a remote study with 14 participants. In a 60-minute session and relying on the think-aloud protocol, participants were asked to complete a variety of sensemaking tasks and provide feedback upon completion. The audio materials were transcribed for analysis and the video recordings of the users' interactions with Discovery were annotated to provide additional context. These combined textual data were thematically analyzed to surface themes that reflect how participants used Discovery's features, what sensemaking of their EHR data really entails, and what features are desirable to support that process better. RESULTS: We found that Discovery provided much needed features and could be used in a variety of everyday scenarios, especially for preparing and during clinical visits and also for raising awareness, reflection, and planning. According to the study participants, Discovery provided a robust set of features for supporting independent exploration and sensemaking of their EHR data: summary and quick overview of the data, finding prevalence, periodicity, co-occurrence, and pre-post of medical events, as well as comparing medical record types and subtypes across providers. In addition, we extracted important design implications from the user feedback on data exploration with multiple views and nonstandard user interface elements. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered sensemaking tools should have a core set of features that can be learned quickly and support common use cases for a variety of users. The patients should be able to detect time-oriented patterns of medical events and get enough context and explanation on demand in a single exploration view that feels warm and familiar and relies on patient-friendly language. However, this view should have enough plasticity to adjust to the patient's information needs as the sensemaking unfolds. Future designs should include the physicians in the patient's sensemaking process and improve the communication in clinical visits and via messaging.
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 | 0,023 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».