MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413976965 · doi:10.2196/preprints.83483

Patient Portal Use in the Management of Asthma and COPD: A Systematic Review of Quality-of-Care Outcomes. (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W4413976965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sukriti KC, Nicholas S Hopkinson, Ana Luísa Neves, Azeem Majeed, Anthony A Laverty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintAsthmaCOPDMedicineQuality (philosophy)Intensive care medicineQuality managementOperations managementComputer scienceEngineeringInternal medicineManagement systemWorld Wide WebPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Patient portals offer access to patient health information and are used to support self-management and facilitate care-coordination in people with chronic diseases. Previous studies have reported some benefits from patient portal on chronic respiratory disease care, but an up-to-date evidence review is required. OBJECTIVE To systematically synthesise evidence on the impacts of patient portals on adult asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) outcomes across six quality-of-care domains (effectiveness, patient-centeredness, equity, efficiency, safety and timeliness). METHODS We searched five databases (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) for quantitative evaluations published up to January 2025 (CRD42022316044). The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool were used for quality assessments and results were narratively synthesised. RESULTS We identified 3838 studies and included 18 papers published between 2007 – 2024. Most studies were on asthma (asthma=15, COPD=2, both=1) and were primarily of medium or low quality. Effectiveness and patient-centredness were the most studied outcomes with 13 studies each. Eight studies were on equity, six on efficiency, five on safety and four on timeliness. Evidence on effectiveness varied with some improvements in disease control and preventative practices, but no mortality benefits. Regarding patient-centredness, although good satisfactions rates were noted, engagement and sustained use were low. Equity impacts varied with a notable exclusion of participants with digital access barriers, whereas modest efficiency benefits were reported with improvements in care-delivery processes. Limited but positive reports regarding safety, and some improvements in time to care were also noted. Although some positive effects were noted across various quality outcomes, we were unable to draw strong conclusions given the high risk of bias across most included studies. CONCLUSIONS Patient portals may provide some benefits in chronic respiratory disease management, but more methodologically robust studies are needed to increase certainty of evidence and identify specific beneficial pathways and functions. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO(CRD42022316044)

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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