Introduction
Methods
Data Sources and Searches
Search themes | |||
---|---|---|---|
(1) Patient perspective | (2) EHR | (3) web-based application | |
Keywords (Applied across all databases) | ‘patient’ ‘inpatient’ ‘outpatient’ | ‘electronic health records’ ‘EHR’ ‘health records’ | ‘portal’ ‘platform’ |
Study Selection, Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
Exclusion criteria* | n |
---|---|
1. Health professionals (doctor, nurse, other health staff) | 35 |
2. Special patient groups (e.g. cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, pneumo etc.) | 15 |
3. Organizational (e.g. change process, IT-architecture etc.) or national aspects (government) | 37 |
4. Medical issues or clinical trails | 10 |
5. Differentiate view on electronic health records (e.g. overall view, satisfaction issues, medication/prescription modules etc.) | 38 |
6. Literature summaries, working papers, letters, protocols, notes, i.e., papers not following a systematic literature review or a scientific searching approach like, e.g. the PRISMA statement | 20 |
Data Synthesis and Analytical Strategy
Characteristics | n |
---|---|
Patient type | |
• General/General/Mixed • Inpatient • Outpatient | 22 8 6 |
Data collection method* | |
• Survey • Systematic literature reviews, with a scientific searching approach reported by following e.g., the PRISMA statement • Interviews • Other approaches (e.g. observational studies, analytic models, focus groups…) | 16 8 8 16 |
Empirical framework | |
• Scientific theory • Self-constructed conceptual framework | 6 30 |
Publication period | |
• 2001 – 2005 • 2006 – 2010 • 2011 – 2015 • 2016—2020 | 4 2 12 18 |
No | Author/ Year | Patient type | Origin | Title | Method | Theory | No. references |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Moll, J. et al. (2018) | General/Mixed | Sweden | Patient's experiences of accessing their electronic health records: National patient survey in Sweden | Online survey | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [14] |
2 | Tavares, J. et al (2016) | General/Mixed | Portuguese | Electronic Health Record Patient Portal Adoption by Health Care Consumers: An Acceptance Model and Survey | Online questionnaire | Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology in a consumer context (UTAUT2) | [3] |
3 | Staroselsky, M. et al. (2005) | Out-patient | USA | Improving electronic health record (EHR) accuracy and increasing compliance with health maintenance clinical guidelines through patient access and input | Survey and control groups 6 months post survey | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [32] |
4 | Turner, K. et al. (2019) | General/Mixed | USA | Patient portal utilization: before and after stage 2 electronic health record meaningful use | Observational study | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [15] |
5 | Goel, M.S. et al. (2011) | General/Mixed | USA | Disparities in enrolment and use of an electronic patient portal | Observational, cross sectional study | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [28] |
6 | Hong, Y.A. et al. (2020) | General/Mixed | USA | Use of Patient Portals of Electronic Health Records Remains Low From 2014 to 2018: Results From a National Survey and Policy Implications | Logistic regression analysis | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [35] |
7 | Fraccaro, P. et al. (2018) | General/Mixed | Transnational | The influence of patient portals on users’ decision making is insufficiently investigated: A systematic methodological review | Systematic literature review | Coiera's information value chain | [47] |
8 | Pell, J.M. et al. (2015) | In-patient | USA | Patient Access to Electronic Health Records | Prospective cohort study | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [37] |
9 | Mold, F. et al. (2015) | Out-patient | Transnational | Patients’ online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic review in primary care | Systematic interpretative review | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [8] |
10 | Schwartz, P.H. et al. (2015) | Out-patient | USA | Patient Preferences in Controlling Access to Their Electronic Health Records: a Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care | Survey | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [11] |
11 | Asan, O. et al. (2016) | In-patient | USA | Capturing the patients' voice: Planning for patient-centered electronic health record use | Semi-structured interviews + thematic analysis | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [30] |
12 | Zhao, J.Y. et al. (2018) | General/Mixed | Transnational | Barriers, Facilitators, and Solutions to Optimal Patient Portal and Personal Health Record Use: A Systematic Review of the Literature | Systematic literature review | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [40] |
13 | Huang, J. et al. (2019) | General/Mixed | USA | Difference Between Users and Nonusers of a Patient Portal in Health Behaviors and Outcomes: Retrospective Cohort Study | Retrospective observational cohort study | Novel cardinality matching approach | [46] |
14 | Dendere, R et al. (2019) | In-patient | Transnational | Patient Portals Facilitating Engagement With Inpatient Electronic Medical Records: A Systematic Review | Systematic literature review | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [34] |
15 | Munir, S. et al. (2001) | In-patient | USA | Patient empowerment and the electronic health record | Survey and interviews | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [53] |
16 | Woods, S.S. et al. (2017) | General/Mixed | USA | The Association of Patient Factors, Digital Access, and Online Behavior on Sustained Patient Portal Use: A Prospective Cohort of Enrolled Users | Prospective Cohort study | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [42] |
17 | Ancker, J.S. et al. (2015) | Out-patient | USA | Patient activation and use of an electronic patient portal | Survey | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [7] |
18 | Abd-alrazaq, A.A. et al. (2019) | General/Mixed | Transnational | Factors that affect the use of electronic personal health records among patients: A systematic review | Systematic literature review | Or and Karsh's conceptual framework | [18] |
19 | Shah, S. et al. (2015) | General/Mixed | United Kingdom | Accessing personal medical records online: A means to what ends? | Online survey questionnaire, and thematic analysis | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [10] |
20 | Mossaed, S. et al. (2015) | In-patient | Canada | Patient Preferences and Perspectives on Accessing Their Medical Records | Survey and observational study, with a thematic analysis | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [16] |
21 | Hoerbst, A. et al. (2010) | General/Mixed | Transnational | Attitudes and behaviors related to the introduction of electronic health records among Austrian and German citizens | Standardized interviews | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [12] |
22 | Greenhalgh, T. et al. (2008) | General/Mixed | United Kingdom | Patients' attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study | Semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [13] |
23 | Zanaboni, P. et al. (2020) | General/Mixed | Norway | Patient Use and Experience With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Norway: Results From an Online Survey | Online survey questionnaire | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [9] |
24 | Powell, K.R. (2017) | General/Mixed | Transnational | Patient-Perceived Facilitators of and Barriers to Electronic Portal Use: A Systematic Review | Systematic literature review | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [1] |
25 | Huvila, I. et al. (2015) | General/Mixed | Sweden | Patients' Perceptions of their medical records form different subject positions | Survey questionnaire | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [48] |
26 | Goldzweig, C.L. et al. (2013) | General/Mixed | Transnational | Electronic Patient Portals: Evidence on Health Outcomes, Satisfaction, Efficiency, and Attitudes: A Systematic Review | Systematic literature review | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [31] |
27 | Alpert, J.M. et al. (2016) | General/Mixed | USA | Applying Multiple Methods to Comprehensively Evaluate a Patient Portal's Effectiveness to Convey Information to Patients | Interviews, focus groups and thematic content analysis | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [29] |
28 | Hanna, L. et al. (2017) | General/Mixed | Australia | Patient perspectives on a personally controlled electronic health record used in regional Australia | Semi-structured telephone interviews, and inductive analysis | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [41] |
29 | Zarcadoolas, C. et al. (2013) | General/Mixed | USA | Consumers' perceptions of patient-accessible electronic medical records | Focus groups | Grounded theory | [50] |
30 | Goel, M.S. et al. (2011) | In-patient | USA | Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal | Telephone survey questionnaire | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [33] |
31 | Honeyman, A. et al. (2005) | Out-patient | United Kingdom | Potential impacts of patient access to their electronic care records | Semi-structured prospective interviews | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [51] |
32 | Pyper, C. et al. (2004) | Out-patient | United Kingdom | Patients' experiences when accessing their online electronic patient records in primary care | In-depth interviews using semi-structured questionnaires and a series of focus group | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [39] |
33 | Wass, S. et al. (2017) | General/Mixed | Sweden | Exploring patients' perceptions of accessing electronic health records: Innovation in healthcare | Inpatient interviews and outpatient surveys | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [36] |
34 | van Mens, H.J.T. et al. (2019) | General/Mixed | Transnational | Determinants and outcomes of patient access to medical records: Systematic review of systematic reviews | Systematic literature review | Clinical adoption framework (CFA) | [43] |
35 | Nambisan, P. et al. (2017) | In-patient | USA | Factors that impact Patient Web Portal Readiness (PWPR) among the underserved | Survey | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [38] |
36 | Woods, S.S. et al. (2013) | In-patient | USA | Patient experiences with full electronic access to health records and clinical notes through the My HealtheVet Personal Health Record Pilot: qualitative study | Focus group sessions | A conceptual framework (self-made) | [54] |
Patient-related attributes | Social norm | Technical/Infrastructural attributes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sociodemographic factors | Psychological factors | Health-related factors | ||||
Step | Activating | Cognitive | ||||
Awareness | 22 | 10; 17; 18; 21; 22; 24 | 12; 20; 21; 22 | 2; 11; 20; 21; 22 | ||
Adaption | 30; 34 | 30 | 2; 3; 14; 26; 30; 34 | 14; 30 | 2; 30 | 14; 30 |
Behavior and perception | 1; 2; 4; 5; 6; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12;; 13; 15; 16; 17; 18; 20; 21; 23; 24; 26; 29; 31; 33; 35 | 12; 15; 25; 31 | 1; 2; 4; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 31; 32; 33; 35 | 2; 3; 6; 9; 11; 12; 13; 15; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 31; 32; 33; 35 | 12 | 1; 3; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 15; 16; 17; 18; 20; 23; 24; 25; 27; 28; 29; 31; 32; 33; 35 |
Consequences | 2 | 1; 2; 3; 7; 12; 19; 33; 36 | 3; 19; 36 | 19; 33; 36 |