MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389250545 · doi:10.2196/51637

Use of Electronic Patient Messaging by Pregnant Patients Receiving Prenatal Care at an Academic Health System: Retrospective Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4389250545 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kai Holder, Joe Feinglass, Charlotte M. Niznik, Lynn M. Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyMedicinePrenatal careFamily medicineCohortHealth careElectronic health recordMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated telemedicine and mobile app use, potentially changing our historic model of maternity care. MyChart is a widely adopted mobile app used in health care settings specifically for its role in facilitating communication between health care providers and patients with its messaging function in a secure patient portal. However, previous studies analyzing portal use in obstetric populations have demonstrated significant sociodemographic disparities in portal enrollment and messaging, specifically showing that patients who have a low income and are non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and uninsured are less likely to use patient portals. Objective: The study aimed to estimate changes in patient portal use and intensity in prenatal care before and during the pandemic period and to identify sociodemographic and clinical disparities that continued during the pandemic. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic medical record (EMR) and administrative data from our health system's Enterprise Data Warehouse. Records were obtained for the first pregnancy episode of all patients who received antenatal care at 8 academically affiliated practices and delivered at a large urban academic medical center from January 1, 2018, to July 22, 2021, in Chicago, Illinois. All patients were aged 18 years or older and attended ≥3 clinical encounters during pregnancy at the practices that used the EMR portal. Patients were categorized by the number of secure messages sent during pregnancy as nonusers or as infrequent (≤5 messages), moderate (6-14 messages), or frequent (≥15 messages) users. Monthly portal use and intensity rates were computed over 43 months from 2018 to 2021 before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown. A logistic regression model was estimated to identify patient sociodemographic and clinical subgroups with the highest portal nonuse. Results: Among 12,380 patients, 2681 (21.7%) never used the portal, and 2680 (21.6%), 3754 (30.3%), and 3265 (26.4%) were infrequent, moderate, and frequent users, respectively. Portal use and intensity increased significantly over the study period, particularly after the pandemic. The number of nonusing patients decreased between 2018 and 2021, from 996 of 3522 (28.3%) in 2018 to only 227 of 1743 (13%) in the first 7 months of 2021. Conversely, the number of patients with 15 or more messages doubled, from 642 of 3522 (18.2%) in 2018 to 654 of 1743 (37.5%) in 2021. The youngest patients, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients, and, particularly, non-English-speaking patients had significantly higher odds of continued nonuse. Patients with preexisting comorbidities, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, diabetes, and a history of mental health conditions were all significantly associated with higher portal use and intensity. Conclusions: Reducing disparities in messaging use will require outreach and assistance to low-use patient groups, including education addressing health literacy and encouraging appropriate and effective use of 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→