Studied factors and metrics of patient portal use among people with HIV: a rapid scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For people living with HIV (PLHIV), patient portals could facilitate access to personal health records while promoting self-management and retention in care. Given the apparent heterogeneity in the studied factors influencing portal use among PLHIV and the metrics used in research, we conducted a rapid scoping review to inventory them. Two databases were searched (Medline and Embase on the Ovid platform) from conception until 15 September 2023. Two reviewers screened all records and full texts. Studies published in English, employing quantitative methods, including a portal usage metric, and involving PLHIV were included. Influencing factors and metrics were classified based on categorizations generated from previous relevant reviews. From 1421 records, 188 full-text studies were assessed, and 18 were included. Published between 2010 and 2022 and mostly from the USA (94%), these studies identified 35 portal usage metrics in five categories (e.g., patient use/adoption, frequency, duration). Similarly, 35 influencing factors were identified, mainly health-related (e.g., HIV viral load) or demographic (e.g., race/ethnicity). This review confirmed the heterogeneity of metrics and influencing factors concerning patient portal use among PLHIV. Developing a conceptual framework of influencing factors and a taxonomy of use metrics could help orient and harmonize future research in this area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".