MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982419916

The impact of patient characteristics and the Internet usage on potential PHR adoption in Primary Care

2019· dissertation· en· W6982419916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableLogistic regressionBivariate analysisThe InternetUnivariateMultivariate analysisDescriptive statisticsMultivariate statisticsHealth careOutcome (game theory)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A Personal Health Record (PHR) provides patient access to their health information and facilitates continuity of care. This provides an opportunity to explore how the PHR could be used to empower patients and enable them to be active participants in the healthcare delivery. But first there is a need to explore how the characteristics of patients and current Internet usage may affect PHR adoption. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine how patient characteristics and current Internet usage patterns are associated with potential PHR use. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. The data were collected from participants using a self-reported questionnaire about their outcome of logging into a primary care PHR system at three different family medicine sites. Data were summarized in tables with descriptive statistics. Frequency and proportion were computed for the categorical variables. Bivariate comparisons were made using Fisher exact and Chi-square statistics where applicable. Logistic regression modeling was applied to evaluate the association between patient characteristics and Internet usage and subsequent PHR login. The significance level (α) for variable selection in multivariate model was set at 0.05. Using the statistical analysis software (SAS University Edition), at the first step of the analysis, univariate regression models were created for all explanatory variables to identify variables that have at least a moderate association with outcome (PHR login). Further, explanatory variables that were found to have a strong to modest association with the result (p≤0.25) were included in the final multivariate model. Using a "forward selection" technique, the final model for PHR login was refitted. The pre-defined criterion for retaining variables in the final model was set conservatively with P-value ≤ 0.05. Results: Of the 116 respondents, 89% intended to use the system, 95% thought it would be of benefit and 25.8% logged in to the PHR (n=30). There was no significant difference in the characteristics of the patients who searched for health versus non-health information online. The group that logged in were predominantly more than 35 years old as 35-64 (57%) and 65-75 (33%), female (63%), postgraduates (53%), employed (57%), English-speaking (77%), had previously heard about electronic PHR (60%), used the Internet from home (83%), at least once a day (97%), and 30 and more hours per week (33%). Also, 87% had a regular medical doctor and 57% had one or more chronic health conditions. In the final multivariate logistic model, patients 65-75 years old (15.85 OR, 2.72-92.19 95%CI) were significantly associated with PHR log-in. Similarly, postgraduate (18.17 OR, 2.14-154.35 95%CI) and those who requested an online prescription renewal (15.09 OR, 2.35-96.77 95%CI) were also more likely to log-in to the PHR system. Conclusion: Very few patients logged in to the PHR system despite its ability to enhance patient engagement, its positive perceived benefits, and their stated intention to use the PHR system. This discrepancy needs to be explored further. Although the literature suggests that an integrated PHR was successful in a few countries compared to a stand-alone PHR, future research is needed to explore the impact of the integrated PHR in the Canadian Primary Care context.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptationFrench-language works237,207