Exploring potential drivers of patient engagement with their health data through digital platforms: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement when providing patient access to health data results from an interaction between the available tools and individual capabilities. The recent digital advancements of the healthcare field have altered the manifestation and importance of patient engagement. However, a comprehensive assessment of what factors contribute to patient engagement remain absent. In this review article, we synthesised the most frequently discussed factors that can foster patient engagement with their health data.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant data were synthesized within 7 layers using a thematic analysis: (1) social and demographic factors, (2) patient ability factors, (3) patient motivation factors, (4) factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, (5) health system factors, (6) technological factors, and (7) policy factors.

RESULTS

We identified 5801 academic and 200 Gy literature records, and included 292 (4.83%) in this review. Overall, 44 factors that can affect patient engagement with their health data were extracted. We extracted 6 social and demographic factors, 6 patient ability factors, 12 patient motivation factors, 7 factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, 4 health system factors, 6 technological factors, and 3 policy factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving patient engagement with their health data enables the development of patient-centered healthcare, though it can also exacerbate existing inequities. While expanding patient access to health data is an important step towards fostering shared decision-making in healthcare and subsequently empowering patients, it is important to ensure that these developments reach all sectors of the community.

Adolescents' reasons for accessing their health records online, perceived usefulness and experienced provider encouragement: a national survey in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Having online access to electronic health records (EHRs) may help patients become engaged in their care at an early age. However, little is known about adolescents using patient portals. A national survey conducted within the Nordic eHealth project NORDeHEALTH provided an important opportunity to advance our understanding of adolescent users of patient portals. The present study explored reasons for reading the EHRs, the perceived usefulness of information and functions in a patient portal and the association between frequency of use and encouragement to read the EHR.

METHODS

Data were collected in a survey using convenience sampling, available through the Swedish online health portal during 3 weeks in January and February 2022. This study included a subset of items and only respondents aged 15-19. Demographic factors and frequencies on Likert-style questions were reported with descriptive statistics, while Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences in use frequency based on having been encouraged to read by a healthcare professional (HCP).

RESULTS

Of 13 008 users who completed the survey, 218 (1.7%) were unique users aged 15-19 (females: 77.1%). One-fifth (47/218, 21.6%) had been encouraged by HCPs to read their records, and having been encouraged by HCPs was related to higher use frequency (p=0.018). All types of information were rated high on usefulness, while some functions were rated low, such as blocking specific clinical notes from HCPs and managing services for family members. The main reason for reading their health records online was out of curiosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents who read their records online perceive it to be useful. Encouragement by HCPs can lead to increased use of patient portals among adolescents. Findings should be considered in the future design of patient portals for adolescents.

Experiences of Patients With Mental Health Issues Having Web-Based Access to Their Records: National Patient Survey

BACKGROUND

Sharing mental health notes through patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) is controversial. Many psychiatric organizations and regions in Sweden have resisted the implementation, as clinicians worry about possible harms when patients are reading their notes. Despite the documented benefits of PAEHRs, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding whether patients with mental health issues could reap similar benefits of reading their notes as other patient groups.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to examine the use, attitudes, and experiences of patients with mental health issues by reading their notes in the PAEHR and, moreover, whether their experiences differ from other patient groups, and if so, how.

METHODS

A national patient survey was conducted with answers from 2587 patients from different patient groups. In total, 504 respondents (19.5%) indicated that they experienced a mental health disease. Answers from this patient group were compared to the answers from all other respondents. Survey questions related to attitudes, information usage, and effects on contacts with care were selected for analysis. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to detect groupwise differences.

RESULTS

Patients with mental health issues use PAEHRs for checking that they have received the right care (mean_mental health 2.83, SD_mental health 1.39; mean_others 2.62, SD_others 1.37; P=.002) or suspected inaccuracies (mean_mental health 2.55, SD_mental health 1.34; mean_others 2.31, SD_others 1.30; P=.001), blocking access for professionals in other specialties (mean_mental health 3.43, SD_mental health 1.46; mean_others 3.04, SD_others 1.42; P<.001), and checking which care professionals have accessed their record (mean_mental health 4.28, SD_mental health 1.14; mean_others 4.05, SD_others 1.25; P<.001) to a significantly higher degree than other patients. On the other hand, the results show that a significantly lower proportion of patients with mental health issues (mean_mental health 3.38, SD_mental health 1.21; mean_others 3.52, SD_others 1.18; P=.02) believe that PAEHRs help them in shared decision-making compared to other patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mental health issues who took part in the survey, as a group, express some minor differences in both the use of the PAEHR and their experiences regarding its usefulness, as compared to other patients, as a group. This patient group shows a slightly higher interest in 2 types of use: checking for accuracy of care in the record and blocking access to mental health notes for professionals from other parts of the health care system. Compared to other patient groups, these patients are less likely to experience that the PAEHR is a support in shared decision-making. The study indicates that the benefits of PAEHR on a general level are the same for this patient group as for other patients. The study does not support clinicians' worry about possible harm to this patient group. Further research is however needed.

Patterns of Health Portal Use by Regular Portal Users Among Patients With Cancer: Results From the UWCCC Survivorship Program

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the patterns of portal usage among patients with cancer who regularly log in to the portal. These data will inform approaches to facilitate portal use among patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient portal usage by patients with cancer at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Our analysis focuses on patterns of portal use by regular users (≥ 2 portal logins/year, > 3 months) receiving ongoing oncology care between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Demographics, cancer characteristics, number of oncology visits per month, and portal usage data were extracted. Regular portal users were grouped and compared on the basis of their frequency of use. A linear mixed-effects model was used to determine if the frequency of oncology visits influenced the number of logins.

RESULTS

We identified 2076 regular portal users. The median number of portal logins/year was 72 for the entire cohort. Age and race were associated with frequency of portal logins. There was no difference in frequency of portal login on the basis of cancer type or stage. Each additional oncology office visit in a month increased the frequency of portal logins by 3.05 ± 0.11 (SE) within the same month. Messages and test result functionalities were used by 98.7% and 98.9% of the regular users, respectively. Regular users who logged in to portal more frequently used all five studied portal functionalities.

CONCLUSION

Patients with cancer who use portals regularly use it more in proximity to an oncology office visit and use multiple available portal functionalities. These findings can direct strategic planning to facilitate portal utilization among those not engaged with this tool.

Telehealth, Social Media, Patient Empowerment, and Physician Burnout: Seeking Middle Ground

The digital revolution is an ongoing process that has nevertheless profoundly affected century-old medical practice. Digitalization has many facets, ranging from telehealth to social media and even new instant communication devices, each of which affect both patients' and physicians' realities. Although the benefits of developments such as telehealth and novel applications of social media to medicine are more easily perceived by all stakeholders, they still have their own hurdles and risks, such as coldness and impersonal treatment in telehealth, and misinformation on social media. The widespread digitalization of health records has greatly facilitated patient access to health information, becoming a major patient empowerment tool; however, some forms of unrestricted access, such as to test results-in particular, prior to consultations-have unclear benefits to patients with cancer and have also become a hurdle for care teams. In addition, the advent of instant messaging, which is revolutionizing personal communication in many cultures, is gradually affecting patient-physician communication and, combined with unrestricted patient access to test results, is creating new challenges for physicians. How these transformations are affecting patients themselves and physicians' well-being and mental health are matters addressed in this text. Last, to address potential biases in an article written by two oncologists, and in line with this year's ASCO presidential theme of including a diversity of voices, we decided to give voice to patients with cancer by collecting the opinions of high-profile patient advocates about the controversial topics addressed in this text.

Patients' Access to Their Psychiatric Notes: Current Policies and Practices in Sweden

Patients’ access to electronic health records (EHRs) is debated worldwide, and access to psychiatry records is even more criticized. There is a nationwide service in Sweden which offers all citizens the opportunity to read their EHR, including clinical notes. This study aims to explore Swedish national and local policy regulations regarding patients’ access to their psychiatric notes and describe to what extent patients currently are offered access to them. The rationale behind the study is that current policies and current practices may differ between the 21 self-governing regions, although there is a national regulation. We gathered web-based information from policy documents and regulations from each region’s website. We also conducted key stakeholder interviews with respondents from the regions and cross-regional private care providers, using a qualitative approach. The results show that 17 of 21 regions share psychiatric notes with patients, where forensic psychiatric care was the most excluded psychiatric care setting. All private care providers reported that they mainly follow the regions’ guidelines. Our findings show that regional differences concerning sharing psychiatric notes persist, despite Swedish regulations and a national policy that stipulates equal care for everyone. The differences, however, appear to have decreased over time, and we report evidence that the regions are moving toward increased transparency for psychiatry patients.

Patients, clinicians and open notes: information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice

In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians ('open notes'). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients' access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety.