Examining How Internet Users Trust and Access Electronic Health Record Patient Portals: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) patient portals are designed to provide medical health records to patients. Using an EHR portal is expected to contribute to positive health outcomes and facilitate patient-provider communication. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine how portal users report using their portals and the factors associated with obtaining health information from the internet. We also examined the desired portal features, factors impacting users' trust in portals, and barriers to using portals. METHODS: An internet-based survey study was conducted using Amazon Mechanical Turk. All the participants were adults in the United States who used patient portals. The survey included questions about how the participants used their portals, what factors acted as barriers to using their portals, and how they used and how much they trusted other web-based health information sources as well as their portals. A logistic regression model was used to examine the factors influencing the participants' trust in their portals. Additionally, the desired features and design characteristics were identified to support the design of future portals. RESULTS: A total of 394 participants completed the survey. Most of the participants were less than 35 years old (212/394, 53.8%), with 36.3% (143/394) aged between 35 and 55 years, and 9.9% (39/394) aged above 55 years. Women accounted for 48.5% (191/394) of the survey participants. More than 78% (307/394) of the participants reported using portals at least monthly. The most common portal features used were viewing lab results, making appointments, and paying bills. Participants reported some barriers to portal use including data security and limited access to the internet. The results of a logistic regression model used to predict the trust in their portals suggest that those comfortable using their portals (odds ratio [OR] 7.97, 95% CI 1.11-57.32) thought that their portals were easy to use (OR 7.4, 95% CI 1.12-48.84), and frequent internet users (OR 43.72, 95% CI 1.83-1046.43) were more likely to trust their portals. Participants reporting that the portals were important in managing their health (OR 28.13, 95% CI 5.31-148.85) and that their portals were a valuable part of their health care (OR 6.75, 95% CI 1.51-30.11) were also more likely to trust their portals. CONCLUSIONS: There are several factors that impact the trust of EHR patient portal users in their portals. Designing easily usable portals and considering these factors may be the most effective approach to improving trust in patient portals. The desired features and usability of portals are critical factors that contribute to users' trust in EHR portals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".