Patient Perceptions of e-Visits: Qualitative Study of Older Adults to Inform Health System Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic visits (e-visits) are billable, asynchronous patient-initiated messages that require at least five minutes of medical decision-making by a provider. Unequal use of patient portal tools like e-visits by certain patient populations may worsen health disparities. To date, no study has attempted to qualitatively assess perceptions of e-visits in older adults. OBJECTIVE: In this qualitative study, we aimed to understand patient perceptions of e-visits, including their perceived utility, barriers to use, and care implications, with a focus on vulnerable patient groups. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth structured individual interviews with patients from diverse backgrounds to assess their knowledge and perceptions surrounding e-visits as compared with unbilled portal messages and other visit types. We used content analysis to analyze interview data. RESULTS: We conducted 20 interviews, all in adults older than 65 years. We identified 4 overarching coding categories or themes. First, participants were generally accepting of the concept of e-visits and willing to try them. Second, nearly two-thirds of the participants voiced a preference for synchronous communication. Third, participants had specific concerns about the name "e-visit" and when to choose this type of visit in the patient portal. Fourth, some participants indicated discomfort using or accessing technology for e-visits. Financial barriers to the use of e-visits was not a common theme. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that older adults are generally accepting of the concept of e-visits, but uptake may be limited due to their preference for synchronous communication. We identified several opportunities to improve e-visit implementation.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".