A Web-Based Patient Portal for Mental Health Care: Benefits Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment for mental illness has shifted from focusing purely on treatment of symptoms to focusing on personal recovery. Patient activation is an important component of the recovery journey. Patient portals have shown promise to increase activation in primary and acute care settings, but the benefits to tertiary level mental health care remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a benefits evaluation of a Web-based portal for patients undergoing treatment for serious or persistent mental illness in order to examine the effects on (1) patient activation, (2) recovery, (3) productivity, and (4) administrative efficiencies. METHODS: All registered inpatients and outpatients at a tertiary level mental health care facility were offered the opportunity to enroll and utilize the patient portal. Those who chose to use the portal and those who did not were designated as "users" and "nonusers," respectively. All patients received usual treatment. Users had Web-based access to view parts of their electronic medical record, view upcoming appointments, and communicate with their health care provider. Users could attend portal training or support sessions led by either the engagement coordinator or peer support specialists. A subset of patients who created and utilized their portal account completed 2 Web-based surveys at baseline (just after enrollment; n=91) and at follow-up (6 and 10 months; n=65). The total score of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM) was a proxy for patient activation and the individual domains measured recovery. The System and Use Survey Tool (SUS) examined the use of functions and general feedback about the portal. Organizational efficiencies were evaluated by examining the odds of portal users and nonusers missing appointments (productivity) or requesting information from health information management (administrative efficiencies) in the year before (2014) and the year after (2015) portal implementation. RESULTS: A total of 461 patients (44.0% male, n=203) registered for the portal, which was used 4761 times over the 1-year follow-up period. The majority of uses (95.34%, 4539/4761) were for e-views. The overall MHRM score increased from 70.4 (SD 23.6) at baseline to 81.7 (SD 25.1) at combined follow-up (P=.01). Of the 8 recovery domains, 7 were increased at follow-up (all P<.05). The odds of a portal user attending an appointment were 67% (CI 56%-79%) greater than that of nonusers over the follow-up period. Compared with 2014, over 2015 there was an 86% and 57% decrease in requests for information in users and nonusers, respectively. The SUS revealed that users felt an increased sense of autonomy and found the portal to be user-friendly, helpful, and efficient but felt that more information should be accessible. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits evaluation suggested that access to personal health records via patient portals may improve patient activation, recovery scores, and organizational efficiencies in a tertiary level mental health care facility.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".