Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Patient Access to Test Results via Web Portals: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A frequently used feature of electronic patient portals is the viewing of test results. Research on patient portals is abundant and offers evidence to help portal implementers make policy and practice decisions. In contrast, no comparable comprehensive summary of research addresses the direct release of and patient access to test results. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to analyze and synthesize published research focused on patient and health care provider perspectives on the direct release of laboratory, imaging, and radiology results to patients via web portals. METHODS: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and other databases. Citations were screened in Covidence using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary studies that focused on patient and health care provider perspectives on patient access to laboratory and imaging results via web portals were included. An updated search was conducted up to August 2023. Our review included 27 articles-20 examining patient views, 3 examining provider views, and 4 examining both patient and provider views. Data extraction and inductive data analysis were informed by sensitizing concepts from sociomaterial perspectives, and 15 themes were generated. RESULTS: Patient perspectives (24 papers) were synthesized using nine themes: (1) patterns of use and patient characteristics; (2) emotional response when viewing the results and uncertainty about their implications; (3) understanding test results; (4) preferences for mode and timing of result release; (5). information seeking and patients' actions motivated by viewing results via a portal; (6) contemplating changes in behavior and managing own health; (7) benefits of accessing test results via a portal; (8) limitations of accessing test results via a portal; and (9) suggestions for portal improvement. Health care provider perspectives (7 papers) were synthetized into six themes: (1) providers' view of benefits of patient access to results via the portal; (2) effects on health care provider workload; (3) concerns about patient anxiety; (4) timing of result release into the patient portal; (5) the method of result release into the patient portal: manual versus automatic release; and (6) the effects of hospital health information technology system on patient quality outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of the release of test results emerged as a particularly important topic. In some countries, the policy context may motivate immediate release of most tests directly into patient portals. However, our findings aim to make policy makers, health administrators, and other stakeholders aware of factors to consider when making decisions about the timing of result release. This review is sensitive to the characteristics of patient populations and portal technology and can inform result release framework policies. The findings are timely, as patient portals have become more common internationally.
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 | 0,022 | 0,112 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,019 | 0,023 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».