Adult Patients’ Experiences of Using a Patient Portal With a Focus on Perceived Benefits and Difficulties, and Perceptions on Privacy and Security: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Patient portals can facilitate patient engagement in care management. Driven by national efforts over the past decade, patient portals are being implemented by hospitals and clinics nationwide. Continuous evaluation of patient portals and reflection of feedback from end users across care settings are needed to make patient portals more user-centered after the implementation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the lived experience of using a patient portal in adult patients recruited from a variety of care settings, focusing on their perceived benefits and difficulties of using the patient portal, and trust and concerns about privacy and security. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study was part of a cross-sectional digital survey research to examine the comprehensive experience of using a patient portal in adult patients recruited from 20 care settings from hospitals and clinics of a large integrated health care system in the mid-Atlantic area of the United States. Those who had used a patient portal offered by the health care system in the past 12 months were eligible to participate in the survey. Data collected from 734 patients were subjected to descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of the participants were female and non-Hispanic White with a mean age of 53.1 (SD 15.34) years. Content analysis of 1589 qualitative comments identified 22 themes across 4 topics: beneficial aspects (6 themes) and difficulties (7 themes) in using the patient portal; trust (5 themes) and concerns (4 themes) about privacy and security of the patient portal. Most of the participants perceived the patient portal functions as beneficial for communicating with health care teams and monitoring health status and care activities. At the same time, about a quarter of them shared difficulties they experienced while using those functions, including not getting eMessage responses timely and difficulty finding information in the portal. Protected log-in process and trust in health care providers were the most mentioned reasons for trusting privacy and security of the patient portal. The most mentioned reason for concerns about privacy and security was the risk of data breaches such as hacking attacks and identity theft. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an empirical understanding of the lived experience of using a patient portal in adult patient users across care settings with a focus on the beneficial aspects and difficulties in using the patient portal, and trust and concerns about privacy and security. Our study findings can serve as a valuable reference for health care institutions and software companies to implement more user-centered, secure, and private patient portals. Future studies may consider targeting other patient portal programs and patients with infrequent or nonuse of patient portals.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».