Current Geriatrics Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 142–154

The Relationship Between the Physical Functioning of Older Adults and Their Use of a Personal Health Record: A Systematic Review

Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (J Richardson, Section Editor)


The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of older adults’ (≥60 years) level of physical functioning on their use of a personal health record (PHR), and to assess the feasibility of a PHR as a modality to monitor the physical functioning of older adults. The databases MedLine, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, AgeLine, and PsychInfo were searched in April 2014 for articles published in 2000-2014. Studies were independently reviewed, with screening, data extraction, and quality assessment done by two readers (EM, CD). Thirteen qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies were included. These articles reported on nine different PHRs and were highly heterogeneous in methodologies, participant characteristics, and setting of use. Results indicated there is a potential to use PHRs as a platform for monitoring of physical functioning, but also identified that physical limitations, in combination with multiple other barriers, could prevent effective use of PHRs by older adults.


Personal health record Older adults Primary care Physical functioning Health information technology Technology acceptance Functional independence 


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Seeman TE, Merkin SS, Crimmins EM, Karlamangla AS. Disability trends among older Americans: national health and nutrition examination surveys, 1988–1994 and 1999–2004. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(1):100.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chou CC et al. Technology acceptance and quality of life of the elderly in a telecare program. Comput Inform Nurs. 2013;31(7):335–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ludwick DA, Doucette J. Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(1):22–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging. 2006;21(2):333.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weiner M, Callahan CM, Tierney WM, Overhage JM, Mamlin B, Dexter PR, et al. Using information technology to improve the health care of older adults. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(5 (Part 2)):430–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connecting for Health. The personal health working group final report. 2003. Markle Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young R, Willis E, Cameron G, Geana M. “Willing but Unwilling”: attitudinal barriers to adoption of home-based health information technology among older adults. Health Informat J. 2013;1–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Varnfield M, Karunanithi MK, Saerelae A, Garcia E, Fairfull A, Oldenburg BF, et al. Uptake of a technology-assisted home-care cardiac rehabilitation program. Med J Aust. 2011;194(4):S15–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.•
    Archer N, Fevrier-Thomas U, Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Straus SE. Personal Health records: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:515–22. This review provides an informative overview of the definitions, functions, uses, proposed benefits, and barriers, of PHRs.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gell NM, Rosenberg DE, Demiris G, LaCroix AZ, Patel KV. Patterns of technology use among older adults with and without disabilities. The Gerontologist. 2012.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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(2):121–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagle S, Schmidt L. Computer acceptance of older adults. Work. 2012;41 Suppl 1:3541–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chun YJ, Patterson PE. A usability gap between older adults and younger adults on interface design of an internet-based telemedicine system. Work. 2012;41 Suppl 1:349–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor MJ, Stables R, Matata B, Lisboa PJG, Laws A, Almond P. Website design: technical, social and medical issues for self-reporting by elderly patients. Health Informat J. 2013;1–15.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Or C, Karsh B. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:550–60.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.•
    Stellefson M, Chaney B, Barry AE, Chavarria E, Tennant B, Walsh-Childers K, et al. Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management for older adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e35 1. This paper evaluates the implementation and use of “Web 2.0” information technologies for chronic disease self-management in adults aged 50 or greater.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonder BR, Dal Bello Haas V. Functional performance in older adults. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.•
    Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, Bartlett G, O’Cathain A, Griffiths F, et al. Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. 2011. This paper gives an overview of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, providing guidelines for the use of the tool and the criteria for assessment.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(1):47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crowe M, Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):79–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tseng K, Hsu C, Chuang Y. Designing an intelligent health monitoring system and exploring user acceptance for the elderly. J Med Syst. 2013;37(6):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.•
    Or CK, Karsh BT, Severtson DJ, Burke LJ, Brown RL, Brennan PF. Factors affecting home care patients’ acceptance of a web-based interactive self-management technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(1):51–9. This study provides an example of application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to the uptake of a PHR for self-management.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monsen KA, Westra BL, Paitich N, Ekstrom D, Mehle SC, Kaeding M, et al. Developing a personal health record for community-dwelling older adults and clinicians: technology and content. J Gerontol Nurs. 2012;38(7):21–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robben SH, Huisjes M, van Achterberg T, Zuidema SU, Olde Rikkert MG, Schers HJ, et al. Filling the gaps in a fragmented health care system: development of the health and welfare information portal (ZWIP). JMIR Res Protoc. 2012;1(2):e10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim E, Mayani A, Modi S, Kim Y, Soh C. Evaluation of patient-centered electronic health record to overcome digital divide. Conf Proce Ann Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;2:1091–4.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim E, Stolyar A, Lober WB, Herbaugh AL, Shinstrom SE, Zierler BK, et al. Challenges to using an electronic personal health record by a low-income elderly population. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(4):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lober WB, Zierler B, Herbaugh A, Shinstrom SE, Stolyar A, Kim EH, et al. Barriers to the use of a personal health record by an elderly population. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings/AMIA Symposium. 2006; p. 514–518.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leveille SG, Huang A, Tsai SB, Weingart SN, Iezzoni LI. Screening for chronic conditions using a patient internet portal: recruitment for an internet-based primary care intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(4):472–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nazi KM, Hogan TP, McInnes DK, Woods SS, Graham G. Evaluating patient access to electronic health records: results from a survey of veterans. Med Care. 2013;51(3 (Suppl 1)):552–6.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richardson J, Letts L, Chan D, Officer A, Wojkowski S, Oliver D, et al. Monitoring physical functioning as the sixth vital sign: evaluating patient and practice engagement in chronic illness care in a primary care setting–a quasi-experimental design. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13(1):29.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim EH, Kim Y. Digital divide: use of electronic personal health record by different population groups. Conf Pro Ann Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:1759–62.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Robben SH, Perry M, Huisjes M, van Nieuwenhuijzen L, Schers HJ, van Weel C, et al. Implementation of an innovative web-based conference table for community-dwelling frail older people, their informal caregivers and professionals: a process evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:251.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liddy C, Dusseault JJ, Dahrouge S, Hogg W, Lemelin J, Humber J. Telehomecare for patients with multiple chronic illnesses Pilot study. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(1):58–65.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chiu KH, Yang YY. Remote monitoring of health status of the elderly at home in Taiwan. Telemed e-Health. 2010;16(6):717–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xue L, Yen CC, Chang L, Chan HC, Tai BC, Tan SB, et al. An exploratory study of ageing women’s perception on access to health informatics via a mobile phone-based intervention. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(9):637–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weinert C, Cudney S, Kinion E. Development of my health companion© to enhance self‐care management of chronic health conditions in rural dwellers. Public Health Nurs. 2010;27(3):263–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heise B, Asche C, Oderda L. RAISE (Rapid Access Integrating Safer Entry) for the elderly: readiness of older adults to adopt a universal serial bus personal health record for medication reconciliation. Ageing Int. 2011;36(2):295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin Macpherson
    • 1
  • Cara Dhaliwal
    • 1
  • Julie Richardson
    • 1
  1. 1.Rehabilitation Science Graduate Program, School of Rehabilitation ScienceMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations