Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Patient Access to Test Results via Web Portals: Scoping Review (2024)

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Lisa Grossman, Ruth M. Masterson Creber, Natalie C Benda … (2019)

More than 100 studies document disparities in patient portal use among vulnerable populations. Developing and testing strategies to reduce disparities in use is essential to ensure portals benefit all populations. To systematically review the impact of interventions designed to: (1) increase portal use or predictors of use in vulnerable patient populations, or (2) reduce disparities in use. A librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Reviews for studies published before September 1, 2018. Two reviewers independently selected English-language research articles that evaluated any interventions designed to impact an eligible outcome. One reviewer extracted data and categorized interventions, then another assessed accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. Out of 18 included studies, 15 (83%) assessed an intervention's impact on portal use, 7 (39%) on predictors of use, and 1 (6%) on disparities in use. Most interventions studied focused on the individual (13 out of 26, 50%), as opposed to facilitating conditions, such as the tool, task, environment, or organization (SEIPS model). Twelve studies (67%) reported a statistically significant increase in portal use or predictors of use, or reduced disparities. Five studies (28%) had high or unclear risk of bias. Individually focused interventions have the most evidence for increasing portal use in vulnerable populations. Interventions affecting other system elements (tool, task, environment, organization) have not been sufficiently studied to draw conclusions. Given the well-established evidence for disparities in use and the limited research on effective interventions, research should move beyond identifying disparities to systematically addressing them at multiple levels.

Khalid AlGhamdi, Noura A Moussa (2012)

The use of the Internet to search for health-related information (HRI) has become a common practice worldwide. Our literature review failed to find any evidence of previous studies on this topic from Saudi Arabia. To determine the public use of the Internet in Saudi Arabia to search for HRI and to evaluate patients' perceptions of the quality of the information available on the Internet compared to that provided by their health care providers. A self-administered questionnaire about Internet use to search for HRI was distributed randomly to male and female outpatients and visitors attending a public University Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from January to May 2010. A Chi-squared test was used to assess the association between different categorical variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to relate the use of the Internet to search for HRI with various socio-demographic variables. The questionnaire response was 80.1%, with completion of 801 of the 1000 distributed questionnaires; 50% (400/801) of respondents were males. The mean age of respondents was 32±11 years. The majority of respondents used the Internet in general (87.8%), and 58.4% of them (363/622) used the Internet to search for HRI. The majority stated a doctor was their primary source of HRI (89.3%, 654/732). This practice was considered useful by 84.2%, and the main reason behind it was sheer curiosity (92.7%, 418/451). Other reasons included not getting enough information from their doctor (58.5%, 227/413) and not trusting the information given by their doctor (28.2%, 101/443). Forty-four percent (205/466) searched for HRI before coming to the clinic; 72.5% of those discussed the information with their doctors and 71.7% (119/166) of those who did so believed that this positively affected their relationship with their doctor. Searching the Internet for health information was observed more frequently among the 30-39 year age group (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.7), females (OR=3.8, 95% CI 2.3-6.4), individuals with university or higher education (OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), employed individuals (OR=2.7, 95% CI 1.4-4.9) and high income groups (OR=2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.1). A proportion of the public searches the Internet to obtain HRI for various reasons, which could have consequences on their health and relationship with their doctors. Therefore, doctors should be aware of the health information available online to help guide patients to reliable websites. Health authorities should also be aware of the issue to offer regulations and solutions. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.