Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study
- PMID: 29240899
- PMCID: PMC5885801
- DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocx140
Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study
Abstract
Objective: Online portals provide patients with access to their test results, but it is unknown how patients use these tools to manage results and what information is available to promote understanding. We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore patients' experiences and preferences when accessing their test results via portals.
Materials and methods: We conducted 95 interviews (13 semistructured and 82 structured) with adults who viewed a test result in their portal between April 2015 and September 2016 at 4 large outpatient clinics in Houston, Texas. Semistructured interviews were coded using content analysis and transformed into quantitative data and integrated with the structured interview data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the structured data.
Results: Nearly two-thirds (63%) did not receive any explanatory information or test result interpretation at the time they received the result, and 46% conducted online searches for further information about their result. Patients who received an abnormal result were more likely to experience negative emotions (56% vs 21%; P = .003) and more likely to call their physician (44% vs 15%; P = .002) compared with those who received normal results.
Discussion: Study findings suggest that online portals are not currently designed to present test results to patients in a meaningful way. Patients experienced negative emotions often with abnormal results, but sometimes even with normal results. Simply providing access via portals is insufficient; additional strategies are needed to help patients interpret and manage their online test results.
Conclusion: Given the absence of national guidance, our findings could help strengthen policy and practice in this area and inform innovations that promote patient understanding of test results.
Similar articles
-
Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Patient Access to Test Results via Web Portals: Scoping Review.J Med Internet Res. 2023 Oct 19;25:e43765. doi: 10.2196/43765. J Med Internet Res. 2023. PMID: 37856174 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Patients' preferences for biopsy result notification in an era of electronic messaging methods.JAMA Dermatol. 2015 May;151(5):513-21. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.5634. JAMA Dermatol. 2015. PMID: 25831475 Clinical Trial.
-
Patient portals and personal health information online: perception, access, and use by US adults.J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Apr 1;24(e1):e173-e177. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw095. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017. PMID: 27413120 Free PMC article.
-
Improving healthcare through digital connection? Findings from a qualitative study about patient portals in New Zealand.Aust J Prim Health. 2018 Nov;24(5):404-408. doi: 10.1071/PY17116. Aust J Prim Health. 2018. PMID: 30149829
-
Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review.J Med Internet Res. 2015 Feb 20;17(2):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3703. J Med Internet Res. 2015. PMID: 25707035 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Impact of encounters on patient app use: results of a tethered mobile personal health record usage pattern analysis.BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Nov 18;24(1):1428. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11881-5. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024. PMID: 39558323 Free PMC article.
-
Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.J Med Internet Res. 2024 Aug 12;26:e53993. doi: 10.2196/53993. J Med Internet Res. 2024. PMID: 39133906 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Real-Time Electronic Patient Portal Use Among Emergency Department Patients.JAMA Netw Open. 2024 May 1;7(5):e249831. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9831. JAMA Netw Open. 2024. PMID: 38700859 Free PMC article.
-
Quality of Answers of Generative Large Language Models Versus Peer Users for Interpreting Laboratory Test Results for Lay Patients: Evaluation Study.J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 17;26:e56655. doi: 10.2196/56655. J Med Internet Res. 2024. PMID: 38630520 Free PMC article.
-
Quality of Answers of Generative Large Language Models vs Peer Patients for Interpreting Lab Test Results for Lay Patients: Evaluation Study.ArXiv [Preprint]. 2024 Jan 23:arXiv:2402.01693v1. ArXiv. 2024. Update in: J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 17;26:e56655. doi: 10.2196/56655 PMID: 38529075 Free PMC article. Updated. Preprint.
References
-
- American Hospital Association. Individuals’ Ability to Electronically Access Their Hospital Medical Records, Perform Key Tasks [Internet]. www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/16jul-tw-healthIT pdf. 2016. Accessed March 20, 2017.
-
- US Government Accountability Office. Health Information Technology: HHS Should Assess the Effectiveness of Its Efforts to Enhance Patient Access to and Use of Electronic Health Information (GAO-17-305). Washington, DC; 2017. Accessed March 20, 2017.
-
- US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CLIA program and HIPAA privacy rule; patients’ access to test reports (42 CFR 493, 45 CFR 164). Fed Reg. 2011;76178.
-
- Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services. Fed Reg. 2012;77:13845 www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-07/pdf/2012-4430.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2017. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
