MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013771910 · doi:10.18438/eblip29671

Focused Bedside Education May Improve Engagement of Hospitalized Patients with Their Patient Portals

2020· article· en· W3013771910 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joanne M. Muellenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialObservational studyMedicinePatient portalIntervention (counseling)Family medicineSurgeryInternal medicineNursingHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Greysen, S.R., Harrison, J.D., Rareshide, C., Magan, Y., Seghal, N., Rosenthal, J., Jacolbia, R., & Auerbach, A.D. (2018). A randomized controlled trial to improve engagement of hospitalized patients with their patient portals. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(12), 1626-1633. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy125 Abstract Objectives – To study hospitalized patients who were provided with tablet computers and the extent to which having access to these computers increased their patient portal engagement during hospitalization and following their discharge. Design – Prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) within a larger, observational study of patient engagement in discharge planning. Setting – A large, academic medical centre in the Western United States of America. Subjects – Of a total of 250 potential subjects from a larger observational study, 137 declined to participate in this one; of the remaining 113 subjects, 16 were unable to access the patient portal, leaving 97 adult (18 years of age or older) patients in the final group. All subjects (50 intervention and 47 control) were randomized but not blinded, had been admitted to medical service, and spoke English. In addition, all participants were supplied with tablet computers for one day during their inpatient stay and were provided with limited assistance to the portal registration and login process as needed. They were also required to have access to a tablet or home computer when discharged. Methods – The intervention group participants received focused bedside structured education by trained research assistants (RAs) who demonstrated portal key functions and explained the importance of these functions for their upcoming transition to post-discharge care. Following enrolment and consent, RAs administered a brief pre-study survey to assess baseline technology use. Then, at the end of the observation day, the RAs performed a debrief interview in which participants were asked to demonstrate their ability to perform key portal tasks. The RAs recorded which tasks were accomplished or if the RAs had provided assistance. Patient demographics and clinical information were obtained from the Electronic Health Record (EHR). Main results – Of the 97 patients who were enrolled in the RCT, 57% logged into their portals at least once within seven days of their discharge. The mean number of logins and specific portal tasks performed was higher for the intervention group than for the control group. In addition, while in the hospital, the intervention group was better able to log in and navigate the portal. Only one specific portal task reached statistical significance—the use of the tab for viewing the messaging interaction with the provider. The time needed to deliver the intervention was brief—less than 15 minutes for 80% of participants. The intervention group’s overall satisfaction with the bedside tablet to access the portal was high. Conclusion – Data analysis revealed that the bedside tablet educational intervention succeeded in increasing patient engagement in the use of the patient portal, both during hospitalization and following discharge. As the interest and demand for patient access to EHRs increases among patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers, more rigorous studies will be needed to guide the implementation of patient portals during and after hospitalization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207