Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Methods Inf Med 2021; 60(S 01): e44-e55
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730284
Original Article

Development and Validation of a Useful Taxonomy of Patient Portals Based on Characteristics of Patient Engagement

Michael Glöggler
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, UMIT—Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
,
Elske Ammenwerth
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, UMIT—Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF; no.: I 3726-N31).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Taxonomies are classification systems used to reduce complexity and better understand a domain. The present research aims to develop a useful taxonomy for health information managers to classify and compare patient portals based on characteristics appropriate to promote patient engagement. As a result, the taxonomy should contribute to understanding the differences and similarities of the portals. Further, the taxonomy shall support health information managers to more easily define which general type and functionalities of patient portals they need and to select the most suitable solution offered on the market.

Methods We followed the formal taxonomy-building method proposed by Nickerson et al. Based on a literature review, we created a preliminary taxonomy following the conceptional approach of the model. We then evaluated each taxa's appropriateness by analyzing and classifying 17 patient portals offered by software vendors and 11 patient portals offered by health care providers. After each iteration, we examined the achievement of the determined objective and subjective ending conditions.

Results After two conceptional approaches to create our taxonomy, and two empirical approaches to evaluate it, the final taxonomy consists of 20 dimensions and 49 characteristics. To make the taxonomy easy to comprehend, we assigned to the dimensions seven aspects related to patient engagement. These aspects are (1) portal design, (2) management, (3) communication, (4) instruction, (5) self-management, (6) self-determination, and (7) data management. The taxonomy is considered finished and useful after all ending conditions that defined beforehand have been fulfilled. We demonstrated that the taxonomy serves to understand the differences and similarities by comparing patient portals. We call our taxonomy “Taxonomy of Patient Portals based on Characteristics of Patient Engagement (TOPCOP).”

Conclusion We developed the first useful taxonomy for health information managers to classify and compare patient portals. The taxonomy is based on characteristics promoting patient engagement. With 20 dimensions and 49 characteristics, our taxonomy is particularly suitable to discriminate among patient portals and can easily be applied to compare portals. The TOPCOP taxonomy enables health information managers to better understand the differences and similarities of patient portals. Further, the taxonomy may help them to define the type and general functionalities needed. But it also supports them in searching and comparing patient portals offered on the market to select the most suitable solution.

Keywords

taxonomy - classification system - patient portal - EHR portal - online EHR access

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 22 December 2020

Accepted: 31 March 2021

Article published online:
09 July 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Roehrs A, da Costa CA, Righi RD, de Oliveira KSF. Personal health records: a systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 (01) e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Otte-Trojel T. Patient Portals Development and Outcomes in Integrated and Fragmented Health Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ammenwerth E, Hoerbst A, Lannig S, Mueller G, Siebert U, Schnell-Inderst P. Effects of adult patient portals on patient empowerment and health-related outcomes: a systematic review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 264 (01) 1106-1110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rigby M, Georgiou A, Hyppönen H. et al. Patient portals as a means of information and communication technology support to patient- centric care coordination - the missing evidence and the challenges of evaluation. a joint contribution of IMIA WG EVAL and EFMI WG EVAL. Yearb Med Inform 2015; 10 (01) 148-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ammenwerth E, Lannig S, Hörbst A, Muller G, Schnell-Inderst P. Adult patient access to electronic health records (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6 (CD01270): 1-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Hoerbst A. The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: a systematic review of controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (06) e162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Alturkistani A, Greenfield G, Greaves F, Aliabadi S, Jenkins RH, Costelloe C. Patient portal functionalities and uptake: systematic review protocol. JMIR Res Protoc 2020; 9 (07) e14975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Crameri KA, Maher L, Van Dam P, Prior S. Personal electronic healthcare records: What influences consumers to engage with their clinical data online? A literature review. Health Inf Manag 2020; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1177/1833358319895369.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Walker DM, Sieck CJ, Menser T, Huerta TR, Scheck McAlearney A. Information technology to support patient engagement: where do we stand and where can we go?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (06) 1088-1094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wass S, Vimarlund V. The role of PAEHRs in patient involvement. J Med Syst 2018; 42 (11) 210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Otte-Trojel T, de Bont A, Rundall TG, van de Klundert J. What do we know about developing patient portals? a systematic literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (e1): e162-e168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Irizarry T, DeVito Dabbs A, Curran CR. Patient portals and patient engagement: a state of the science review. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (06) e148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tsai CH, Eghdam A, Davoody N, Wright G, Flowerday S, Koch S. Effects of electronic health record implementation and barriers to adoption and use: A scoping review and qualitative analysis of the content. Life (Basel) 2020; 10 (12) 1-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wildenbos GA, Horenberg F, Jaspers M, Peute L, Sent D. How do patients value and prioritize patient portal functionalities and usage factors? A conjoint analysis study with chronically ill patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2018; 18 (01) 108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hazara AM, Durrans K, Bhandari S. The role of patient portals in enhancing self-care in patients with renal conditions. Clin Kidney J 2019; 13 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fiks AG, Mayne SL, Karavite DJ. et al. Parent-reported outcomes of a shared decision-making portal in asthma: a practice-based RCT. Pediatrics 2015; 135 (04) e965-e973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Coughlin SS, Williams LB, Hatzigeorgiou C. A systematic review of studies of web portals for patients with diabetes mellitus. mHealth 2017; 3 (03) 23-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ammenwerth E, Neyer S, Hörbst A, Mueller G, Siebert U, Schnell-Inderst P. Adult patient access to electronic health records. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 2: CD012707
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Scheplitz T, Benedict M, Esswein W. Patientenkompetenz durch Online-Portale – Eine Funktionsanalyse. In: Tagungsband Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI). 2018. : Data Driven X - Turning Data into Value. Lüneburg: Paul Drews, Burkhardt Funk, Peter Niemeyer und Lin Xie 2018; 744-755
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Eickhoff M, Muntermann J, Weinrich T. What do fintechs actually do? A taxonomy of fintech business models. In: Yong Jin Kim, Ritu Agarwal, Jae Kyu Lee. editors Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems - Transforming Society with Digital Innovation, ICIS 2017, Seoul, South Korea, December 10-13, 2017. Association for Information Systems, 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Glass RL, Vessey I. Contemporary application-domain taxonomies. IEEE Softw 1995; 12 (04) 63-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nickerson RC, Varshney U, Muntermann J. A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. Eur J Inf Syst 2013; 22 (03) 336-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 2004; 28 (01) 75-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ammenwerth E. Die Bewertung von Informationssystemen des Gesundheitswesens: Beiträge für ein umfassendes Informations management. (Habilitation thesis), Hall, Austria: UMIT Private Universität für Medizinische Informatik und Technik Tirol; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Bailey KD. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1994
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Doty DH, Glick WH. Typologies as a unique form of theory building : toward improved understanding and modeling. Acad Manage Rev 1994; 19 (02) 230-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lambe P. Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge and Organisational Effectiveness. 1st ed.. Oxford, England, United Kingdom: Chandos Publishing; 2007
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Roeder J, Muntermann J, Kneib T. Towards a taxonomy of data heterogeneity. In: 15th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik. Potsdam, Germany: Gronau, N., Heine, M., Krasnova, H., Pousttchi, K. 2020: 293-308
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Remane G, Nickerson RC, Hanelt A, Tesch JF, Kolbe LM. A Taxonomy of Carsharing Business Models. In: 2016 International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2016 - Digital Innovation at the Crossroads. Association for Information Systems AIS; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Bates M, Black C, Blair F. et al. Perceptions of health information management educational and practice experiences. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2014; 11 (Summer): 1d
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nickerson RC, Muntermann J, Varshney U, Issac H. Taxonomy development in information systems: developing a taxonomy of mobile applications. Accessed May 3, 2021 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46479041_Taxonomy_Development_In_Information_Systems_Developing_A_Taxonomy_Of_Mobile_Applications
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen Und Techniken. 11th ed.. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Mayring P. Einführung in Die Qualitative Sozialforschung. 6., Überar. Weinheim und Basel; Beltz Verlag: 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Accessed May 3, 2021 at: https://www.psychopen.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/books/mayring/ssoar-2014-mayring-Qualitative_content_analysis_theoretical_foundation.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Heithecker J. DMEA - Connecting Digital Health. Messe Berlin GmbH. https://www.dmea.de/About/DMEA/ . Published 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Mold F, Raleigh M, Alharbi NS, de Lusignan S. The impact of patient online access to computerized medical records and services on type 2 diabetes: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (07) e235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Graham TAD, Ballermann M, Lang E. et al. Emergency physician use of the Alberta netcare portal, a province-wide interoperable electronic health record: Multi-method observational study. JMIR Med Inform 2018; 6 (03) e10184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tavares J, Oliveira T. New integrated model approach to understand the factors that drive electronic health record portal adoption: cross-sectional national survey. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (11) e11032
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kelly MM, Dean SM, Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Hoonakker PLT. Healthcare team perceptions of a portal for parents of hospitalized children before and after implementation. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (01) 265-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Dalal AK, Dykes P, Samal L. et al. Potential of an electronic health record-integrated patient portal for improving care plan concordance during acute care. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (03) 358-366
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Foster B, Krasowski MD. The use of an electronic health record patient portal to access diagnostic test results by emergency patients at an academic medical center: Retrospective study. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (06) e13791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wallace LS, Angier H, Huguet N. et al. Patterns of electronic portal use among vulnerable patients in a nationwide practice-based research network: from the OCHIN practice-based research network (PBRN). J Am Board Fam Med 2016; 29 (05) 592-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Bell SK, Roche SD, Johansson AC. et al. Clinician perspectives on an electronic portal to improve communication with patients and families in the intensive care unit. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13 (12) 2197-2206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 King G, Maxwell J, Karmali A. et al. Connecting families to their health record and care team: The use, utility, and impact of a client/family health portal at a children's rehabilitation hospital. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 (04) e97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Miklin DJ, Vangara SS, Delamater AM, Goodman KW. Understanding of and barriers to electronic health record patient portal access in a culturally diverse pediatric population. JMIR Med Inform 2019; 7 (02) e11570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Hill JN, Smith BM, Weaver FM. et al. Potential of personal health record portals in the care of individuals with spinal cord injuries and disorders: Provider perspectives. J Spinal Cord Med 2018; 41 (03) 298-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 D'Costa SN, Kuhn IL, Fritz Z. A systematic review of patient access to medical records in the acute setting: practicalities, perspectives and ethical consequences. BMC Med Ethics 2020; 21 (01) 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Zanaboni P, Kummervold PE, Sørensen T, Johansen MA. Patient use and experience with online access to electronic health records in Norway: results from an online survey. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (02) e16144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Tieu L, Schillinger D, Sarkar U. et al. Online patient websites for electronic health record access among vulnerable populations: portals to nowhere?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (e1): e47-e54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Chen M, Decary M. Embedding health literacy tools in patient ehr portals to facilitate productive patient engagement. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 257: 59-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Leveille SG, Mejilla R, Ngo L. et al. Do patients who access clinical information on patient internet portals have more primary care visits?. Med Care 2016; 54 (01) 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Coughlin SS, Prochaska JJ, Williams LB. et al. Patient web portals, disease management, and primary prevention. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2017; 10: 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Nambisan P. Factors that impact Patient Web Portal Readiness (PWPR) among the underserved. Int J Med Inform 2017; 102: 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Osborn CY, Mayberry LS, Mulvaney SA, Hess R. Patient web portals to improve diabetes outcomes: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep 2010; 10 (06) 422-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Kopanitsa G, Karpov A, Lakovenko G, Laskovenko A, Yampolsky V. Exploring barriers and opportunities for adoption of web portals in Russia. Example of a tuberculosis portal. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 224: 170-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Jones JB, Weiner JP, Shah NR, Stewart WF. The wired patient: patterns of electronic patient portal use among patients with cardiac disease or diabetes. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (02) e42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Dinh-Le C, Chuang R, Chokshi S, Mann D. Wearable health technology and electronic health record integration: scoping review and future directions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7 (09) e12861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Nøhr C, Parv L, Kink P. et al. Nationwide citizen access to their health data: analysing and comparing experiences in Denmark, Estonia and Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 (01) 534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Gorfinkel I, Lexchin J. Enabling patient portals to access primary care medical records: Maximizing collaboration in care between patients and providers. Healthc Policy 2019; 14 (04) 21-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Rodon Modol J. Navigating towards self-care: the Catalan public patient portal. In: Aanestad M, Grisot M, Hanseth O, Vassilakopoulou P. eds. Information Infrastructures within European Health Care. Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 25-33
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Grisot M, Vassilakopoulou P, Aanestad M. The Norwegian ehealth platform: development through cultivation strategies and incremental changes. In: Aanestad M, Grisot M, Hanseth O, Vassilakopoulou P. eds. Information Infrastructures within European Health Care. Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 25-33
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Krist AH, Peele E, Woolf SH. et al. Designing a patient-centered personal health record to promote preventive care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011; 11 (01) 73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Wald JS, Businger A, Gandhi TK. et al. Implementing practice-linked pre-visit electronic journals in primary care: patient and physician use and satisfaction. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (05) 502-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 De Croon R, Klerkx J, Duval E. Designing a useful and usable mobile EMR application through a participatory design methodology: A case study. Proc - 2014 IEEE Int Conf Healthc Informatics, ICHI 2014; . 2014: 176-185
    Google Scholar
  • 66 Rodolfo I, Laranjo L, Correia N, Duarte C. Design strategy for a national integrated personal health record. In: Proceedings of the NordiCHI 2014: The 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery; 2014: 411-420
    Google Scholar
  • 67 Sigler R, Kubat R, Lopez A, Newman JR. Implementation of a standardised sign-up process to increase MyChart enrolment among HIV-positive patients. BMJ Open Qual 2019; 8 (03) e000602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Sharit J, Lisigurski M, Andrade A. et al. The roles of health literacy, numeracy, and graph literacy on the usability of the VA's personal health record by veterans. J Usability Stud 2014; 9: 173-193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Kondylakis H, Flouris G, Fundulaki I, Papakonstantinou V, Tsiknakis M. Flexible access to patient data through e-consent. In: MOBIHEALTH 2015 - 5th EAI International Conference on Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare - Transforming Healthcare through Innovations in Mobile and Wireless Technologies. London; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 70 Hanauer DA, Preib R, Zheng K, Choi SW. Patient-initiated electronic health record amendment requests. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (06) 992-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Miller DM, Moore SM, Fox RJ. et al. Web-based self-management for patients with multiple sclerosis: a practical, randomized trial. Telemed J E Health 2011; 17 (01) 5-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 van Kuppenveld SI, van Os-Medendorp H, Tiemessen NA, van Delden JJ. Real-time access to electronic health record via a patient portal: is it harmful? A retrospective observational study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (02) e13622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Nazi KM, Turvey CL, Klein DM, Hogan TP. A decade of veteran voices: Examining patient portal enhancements through the lens of user-centered design. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (07) e10413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Dragić L, Piljić I, Kovač M. et al. Home health smart TV - bringing e-health closer to elders. In: 57th International Symposium ELMAR (ELMAR). Zadar; 2015: 251-254
    Google Scholar
  • 75 Ochoa III A, Kitayama K, Uijtdehaage S. et al. Patient and provider perspectives on the potential value and use of a bilingual online patient portal in a Spanish-speaking safety-net population. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (06) 1160-1164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Bailey SC, Wallia A, Wright S. et al. Electronic health record-based strategy to promote medication adherence among patients with diabetes: longitudinal observational study. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (10) e13499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Senathirajah Y, Bakken S, Kaufman D. The clinician in the driver's seat: part 1 - a drag/drop user-composable electronic health record platform. J Biomed Inform 2014; 52: 165-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Zhou L, DeAlmeida D, Parmanto B. Applying a user-centered approach to building a mobile personal health record app: development and usability study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7 (07) e13194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Ancker JS, Mauer E, Kalish RB, Vest JR, Gossey JT. Early adopters of patient-generated health data upload in an electronic patient portal. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (02) 254-260
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 O'Connell Francischetto E, Damery S, Ferguson J, Combes G. myVideoClinic randomised evaluation steering group. Video clinics versus standard face-to-face appointments for liver transplant patients in routine hospital outpatient care: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised evaluation of myVideoClinic. Trials 2018; 19 (01) 574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Bt Nasaruddin NS, Aziz IA, Rashid NA. Web-based electronic healthcare record system (EHRS) based on feedback. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Application, Information and Network Security, AINS 2018. Langkawi, Malaysia: IEEE; 2019: 27-32
    Google Scholar
  • 82 Genes N, Violante S, Cetrangol C, Rogers L, Schadt EE, Chan YY. From smartphone to EHR: a case report on integrating patient-generated health data. NPJ Digit Med 2018; 1 (01) 23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Anthony CA, Polgreen LA, Chounramany J. et al. Outpatient blood pressure monitoring using bi-directional text messaging. J Am Soc Hypertens 2015; 9 (05) 375-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Cutrona SL, Golden JG, Goff SL. et al. Improving rates of outpatient influenza vaccination through EHR portal messages and interactive automated calls: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2018; 33 (05) 659-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Wang J, Coleman DC, Kanter J, Ummer B, Siminerio L. Connecting smartphone and wearable fitness tracker data with a nationally used electronic health record system for diabetes education to facilitate behavioral goal monitoring in diabetes care: Protocol for a pragmatic multi-site randomized trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2018; 7 (04) e10009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Khan IA. Personalized electronic health record system for monitoring patients with chronic disease. In: 2013 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, SIEDS 2013. Charlottesville, VA, USA: IEEE; 2013: 121-126
    Google Scholar
  • 87 Wolff JL, Kim VS, Mintz S, Stametz R, Griffin JM. An environmental scan of shared access to patient portals. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (04) 408-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Brandner A, Schreiweis B, Aguduri LS. et al. The patient portal of the personal cross-enterprise electronic health record (PEHR) in the Rhine-Neckar-Region. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 228: 157-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 ISO/TR 14292:2012(en). Health informatics - personal health records - definition, scope and context. Accessed May 3, 2021 at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:tr:14292:ed-1:v1:en
    Google Scholar