MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416135611 · doi:10.2196/preprints.87521

Exploring Patient Empowerment and Health System Outcomes Associated With MyHealthNB, a Provincial Personal Health Record System: Exploratory Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)

2025· article· W4416135611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paula Voorheis, Stephan U Dombrowski, Frances Bruno, Carolyn Steele Gray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchDigital healthEmpowermentMediationQualitative propertyExploratory researchData collectionElectronic health recordHealth Information National Trends Survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Personal health record systems (PHRs) have been introduced to support patient empowerment by giving individuals direct access to their personal health information and other key health system resources. MyHealthNB is a province-wide PHR in New Brunswick, Canada, that allows residents to view laboratory results, medication lists, immunization records, imaging reports, and a range of digital health resources. As PHRs continue to expand, it is essential to understand how PHRs like MyHealthNB impact outcomes related to patient empowerment. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study uses MyHealthNB as a case example to examine empowerment-related impacts of PHRs on citizens. Building on a conceptual framework linking patient enablement, empowerment, involvement, and engagement, the study is guided by two questions: (1) What perceived impacts of PHR use emerge across enablement, empowerment, involvement, engagement, and cost-related outcomes? (2) Which impacts of PHR use are most prevalent, how are they interrelated, and what characteristics predict variation in these impacts? </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> An exploratory sequential mixed methods study design was used. Phase 1 involved qualitative interviews with citizens to explore perceived impacts of using MyHealthNB, which were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Findings informed a Phase 2 cross-sectional survey that measured MyHealthNB users’ self-reported impacts across enablement, empowerment, involvement, engagement, and cost-related outcomes. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, &lt;i&gt;t&lt;/i&gt; tests, mediation analysis, and multivariable linear regressions to examine impacts, impact pathways, and impact predictors. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Data from 32 interviewees and 885 survey respondents were analyzed. The qualitative analysis showed that MyHealthNB supported a progression from improved access to health information (enablement), to increased confidence (empowerment), to more active participation in health management and health care decisions (involvement and engagement). The survey analysis confirmed significant positive impacts across all 21 outcomes measured that spanned enablement, empowerment, involvement, engagement, and cost-related outcomes (&lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;&amp;lt;.05). Mediation analyses showed that higher perceived enablement through MyHealthNB was associated with greater patient involvement and engagement, with empowerment emerging as a central linking factor. Regression models identified key predictors of MyHealthNB impacts, which included satisfaction with MyHealthNB, having a family doctor, provider support of MyHealthNB, digital literacy, and MyHealthNB use frequency. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Exploratory, self-reported citizen data suggest that PHRs may improve outcomes related to patient empowerment, behavior change, and health system benefits. The advantages of PHR use were most prominent when individuals had access to primary care, received support from health care providers, and had confidence using digital technologies. To fully realize the promise of PHRs, implementers should invest in digital literacy support and strengthen primary care access and integration. </sec>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207