Implementing and Using a Patient Portal: A qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives on engaging patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of portals might be expected to rise; however, adoption has been slow. Development of portals has occurred with limited patient involvement. This paper fills a need for literature concerning perspectives regarding the value of portals, how best to organize and provide portals, and critically how to seek patient involvement in implementation.ObjectiveThe objective was to explore the feelings, ideas, and expectations of patients and primary care providers concerning the implementation and use of patient portals. METHOD: The study employed a descriptive qualitative design interviewing seven patients and four providers from an interdisciplinary primary health care clinic in Ontario, Canada. Patients were older with at least one chronic condition. Interviews were analysed independently by three coders who then met to synthesize the findings. RESULTS: There was limited experience of portals and substantial convergence between patients and providers regarding concerns and potential benefits with an overall positive view. Four themes emerged: 1) the Context in which patient portal use takes place; 2) the Necessary conditions for use of a patient portal; 3) the Implementation of a patient portal; and 4) the Use of a patient portal for care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight that it is not sufficient to engage patients in the use of a portal; it is critical that patients be engaged in the early stages of implementation. With many health and fitness electronic tools available (e.g. Fitbit©), this study remind us that tools are not enough. Patient engagement requires patient-centred partnerships between patients and health care providers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it