Advice for Improving the Experience of Web-Based Patient Portals: Qualitative Interviews With Caregiver-Adolescent Dyads
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Web-based patient portals can benefit adolescents and their caregivers by increasing access and providing greater understanding of one's health information, enhancing communication with clinicians, and supporting caregiver influence. Despite these benefits, adolescent uptake has been low with high attrition rates. Feedback from adolescents and caregivers is essential to improve the uptake and usability of the web-based patient portal. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to identify advice for medical informatics administrators and clinicians directed at improving the adolescent and caregiver experience with the web-based patient portal. METHODS: Caregivers completed a demographic survey followed by separate qualitative, semistructured interviews with adolescent-caregiver dyads with and without chronic illnesses. Caregivers and adolescents were interviewed separately regarding advice for administrators and clinicians on several topics, including (1) providing adolescent and caregiver portal access, (2) how doctors should discuss the portal with families and the content of their notes, and (3) what general advice they had to improve portal access for families. We performed thematic analysis to develop a codebook, and team members applied these codes to the transcripts and analyzed for overlaps and contrasts. RESULTS: We performed 102 interviews with 51 dyads of caregivers and adolescents (26 with chronic illness and 25 without chronic illness). The majority of adolescents and their caregivers were White (adolescents: n=28, 55% and caregivers: n=28, 55%) or Black (adolescents: n=21, 41% and caregivers: n=21, 41%) and female (adolescents: n=30, 59% and caregivers: n=50, 98%). The majority of caregivers had accessed their child's portal (n=33, 65%), whereas the majority of adolescents had not (n=17, 33%). We identified three themes related to adolescent and caregiver advice: (1) encouraging and supporting portal use, (2) recognizing the emotional experience of portal use, and (3) improving portal usability, understandability, and individualization. Adolescents and their caregivers provided specific recommendations regarding initial access or enrollment including improving resources and clinician encouragement as well as improving the usability in terms of user-friendly design, understandable language, and clear expectations. Finally, caregivers and adolescents had varied opinions on confidentiality and access but emphasized the importance of understanding the emotional impact and providing guidance to caregivers and adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents and caregivers outlined critical advice to medical informatics administrators and clinicians to improve the patient portal uptake and usability. Further research is required to determine the best application for these recommendations, including the potential use for advance technologies to simplify results and clinical documentation, strategies to improve the user-friendly design, and how clinicians should communicate with families now that clinical documentation is viewable to patients and caregivers.
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 | 0,018 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».