Increasing Patient Engagement: Patients’ Responses to Viewing Problem Lists Online

Summary

Objective: To characterize the opinions, emotions, and actions taken by patients who viewed their electronic problem list via an online personal health record (PHR).

Materials and Methods: An online survey of patients who viewed their problem lists, as maintained by their healthcare provider, in a web-based PHR linked to an electronic health record for the first time.

Results: A total 3,649 patients completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 42.1%. Patient attitudes towards the problem list function were positive overall, with 90.4% rating it at least somewhat useful and 86.7% reporting they would probably or definitely use it again. Nearly half (45.6%) of patients identified at least one major or minor problem missing from their list. After viewing the list, 56.1% of patients reported taking at least one action in response, with 32.4% of patients reporting that they researched a condition on the Internet, 18.3% reported that they contacted their healthcare provider and 16.7% reported changing or planning to change a health behavior (patients could report multiple actions). 64.7% of patients reported feeling at least somewhat happy while viewing their problem list, though others reported feeling sad (30.4%), worried (35.7%) or scared (23.8%) (patients could report multiple emotions). A smaller number of patients reported feeling angry (16.6%) or ashamed (14.3%). Patients who experienced an emotional response were more likely to take action.

Conclusion: Overall, patients found the ability to view their problem lists very useful and took action in response to the information. However, some had negative emotions. More research is needed into optimal strategies for supporting patients receiving this information.

Citation: Wright A, Feblowitz J, Maloney FL, Henkin S, Ramelson H, Feltman J, Bates DW. Increasing patient engagement: Patients’ responses to viewing problem lists online. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 930–942

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-07-RA-0057

Keywords

Personal medical records - health information technology - patient portal - patient satisfaction - patient survey

 

Conflicts Of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this research.

• References

• 1 Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, Overhage JM, Sands DZ. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (02) 121-126.
• 2 Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The „meaningful use“ regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (06) 501-504.
• 3 Personal Health Working Group Final Report, Markle Foundation: Advancing America’s Future in a Networked World.. Collaborative, Editor 2003 New York Available from: http://www.markle.org/publications/1429-personal-health-working-group-final-report.
• 4 Wolter J, Friedman B. Health records for the people. Touting the benefits of the consumer-based personal health record. J AHIMA 2005; 76 (10) 28-32.
• 5 Delbanco T, Sands DZ. Electrons in flight--e-mail between doctors and patients. N Engl J Med 2004; 350 (17) 1705-1707.
• 6 Liederman EM, Morefield CS. Web messaging: a new tool for patient-physician communication. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (03) 260-270.
• 7 Tang PC, Black W, Buchanan J, Young CY, Hooper D, Lane SR, Love B, Mitchell C, Smith N, Turnbull JR. PAMFOnline: integrating EHealth with an electronic medical record system. AMIA Annual Symposium Proc 2003: 644-648.
• 8 Walker J, Leveille SG, Ngo L, Vodicka E, Darer JD, Dhanireddy S, Elmore JG, Feldman HJ, Lichtenfeld MJ, Oster N, Ralston JD, Ross SE, Delbanco T. Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: patients and doctors look ahead: patient and physician surveys. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (12) 811-819.
• 9 Feeley TW, Shine KI. Access to the medical record for patients and involved providers: transparency through electronic tools. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (12) 853-854.
• 10 Zulman DM, Nazi KM, Turvey CL, Wagner TH, Woods SS, An LC. Patient interest in sharing personal health record information: a web-based survey. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (12) 805-810.
• 11 The Public and Doctors Largely Agree Patients Should Be Able To View, Download and Share Their Health Info, Markle Foundation: Advancing American’s Future in a Networked World, 2011 [ cited 2012 April 2]; Available from: http://www.markle.org/publications/1460-public-and-doctors-largely-agree-patients-should-be-able-view-download-and-share-t.
• 12 Patient Access to Electronic Health Records: What Does the Doctor Order?. Accenture, Editor 2013. Available from: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Patient-Access-to-Electronic-Health-Records-What-Does-the-Doctor-Order.pdf.
• 13 Wright A, Poon EG, Wald J, Feblowitz J, Pang JE, Schnipper JL, Grant RW, Gandhi TK, Volk LA, Bloom A, Williams DH, Gardner K, Epstein M, Nelson L, Businger A, Li Q, Bates DW, Middleton B. Randomized controlled trial of health maintenance reminders provided directly to patients through an electronic PHR. Journal Gen Intern Med 2012; 27 (01) 85-92.
• 14 Schnipper JL, Gandhi TK, Wald JS, Grant RW, Poon EG, Volk LA, Businger A, Williams DH, Siteman E, Buckel L, Middleton B. Effects of an online personal health record on medication accuracy and safety: a cluster-randomized trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (05) 728-734.
• 15 Archer N, Fevrier-Thomas U, Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Straus SE. Personal health records: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (04) 515-522.
• 16 Halamka JD, Mandl KD, Tang PC. Early experiences with personal health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (01) 1-7.
• 17 Hassol A, Walker JM, Kidder D, Rokita K, Young D, Pierdon S, Deitz D, Kuck S, Ortiz E. Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (06) 505-513.
• 18 Wald JS, Middleton B, Bloom A, Walmsley D, Gleason M, Nelson E, Li Q, Epstein M, Volk L, Bates DW. A patient-controlled journal for an electronic medical record: issues and challenges. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107 Pt 2 1166-1170.
• 19 Kittler AF, Carlson GL, Harris C, Lippincott M, Pizziferri L, Volk LA, Jagannath Y, Wald JS, Bates DW. Primary care physician attitudes towards using a secure web-based portal designed to facilitate electronic communication with patients. Inform Prim Care 2004; 12 (03) 129-138.
• 20 Wald JS, Burk K, Gardner K, Feygin R, Nelson E, Epstein M, Poon EG, Middleton B. Sharing electronic laboratory results in a patient portal--a feasibility pilot. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007; 129 Pt 1 18-22.
• 21 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381.
• 22 Wright A, Pang J, Feblowitz JC, Maloney FL, Wilcox AR, Ramelson HZ, Schneider LI, Bates DW. A method and knowledge base for automated inference of patient problems from structured data in an electronic medical record. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (06) 859-867.
• 23 Wuerdeman L, Volk L, Pizziferri L, Tsurikova R, Harris C, Feygin R, Epstein M, Meyers K, Wald JS, Lansky D, Bates DW. How accurate is information that patients contribute to their Electronic Health Record?. AMIA Annual Symposium Proc. 2005: 834-838.
• 24 Yamin CK, Emani S, Williams DH, Lipsitz SR, Karson AS, Wald JS, Bates DW. The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171 (06) 568-574. PubMed PMID: 21444847.
• 25 Group Health Research Institute.. The Chronic Care Model: Model Elements 2006 [cited 2014 15 Sep]. Available from: http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/index.php?p=Model_Elements&s=18.