New Ways for Patients to Make Sense of Their Electronic Health Record Data Using the Discovery Web Application: Think-Aloud Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the United States, patients can access their electronic health record (EHR) data through patient portals. However, current patient portals are mainly focused on a single provider, with very limited data sharing capabilities and put low emphasis on independent sensemaking of the EHR data. This makes it very challenging for patients to switch between different portals and aggregate the data to obtain a complete picture of their medical history and to make sense of it. Owing to this fragmentation, patients are exposed to numerous inconveniences such as medical errors, repeated tests, and limited self-advocacy. OBJECTIVE: To overcome the limitations of EHR patient portals, we designed and developed Discovery-a web-based application that aggregates EHR data from multiple providers and present them to the patient for efficient exploration and sensemaking. To learn how well Discovery meets the patients' sensemaking needs and what features should such applications include, we conducted an evaluation study. METHODS: We conducted a remote study with 14 participants. In a 60-minute session and relying on the think-aloud protocol, participants were asked to complete a variety of sensemaking tasks and provide feedback upon completion. The audio materials were transcribed for analysis and the video recordings of the users' interactions with Discovery were annotated to provide additional context. These combined textual data were thematically analyzed to surface themes that reflect how participants used Discovery's features, what sensemaking of their EHR data really entails, and what features are desirable to support that process better. RESULTS: We found that Discovery provided much needed features and could be used in a variety of everyday scenarios, especially for preparing and during clinical visits and also for raising awareness, reflection, and planning. According to the study participants, Discovery provided a robust set of features for supporting independent exploration and sensemaking of their EHR data: summary and quick overview of the data, finding prevalence, periodicity, co-occurrence, and pre-post of medical events, as well as comparing medical record types and subtypes across providers. In addition, we extracted important design implications from the user feedback on data exploration with multiple views and nonstandard user interface elements. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered sensemaking tools should have a core set of features that can be learned quickly and support common use cases for a variety of users. The patients should be able to detect time-oriented patterns of medical events and get enough context and explanation on demand in a single exploration view that feels warm and familiar and relies on patient-friendly language. However, this view should have enough plasticity to adjust to the patient's information needs as the sensemaking unfolds. Future designs should include the physicians in the patient's sensemaking process and improve the communication in clinical visits and via messaging.
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 | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".