Advertisement

The value of a Patient Access Portal in primary care: a cross-sectional survey of 62,486 registered users in the UK

  • Mohammed A. MohammedEmail author
  • Jane Montague
  • Muhammad Faisal
  • Laura Lamming
Open Access
Long Paper

Abstract

In England, primary care patients have access to Patient Access Portals (PAPs), enabling them to book appointments, request repeat medication prescriptions, send/receive messages and review their medical records. Few studies have elicited user views and value of PAPs, especially in a publicly funded primary care setting. This study aimed to elicit the value users of PAPs place on online access to medical records and linked services. Secondary data analysis of the completed electronic survey (available 2 May 2015–27 June 2015) distributed via the EMIS PAP to all its registered users. EMIS designed the survey; responses were voluntary. There were 62,486 responders (95.7% self-completed). The PAP was mainly used for medication requests (86.3%) and online appointment bookings (78.4%), and, to a lesser extent, medical record viewing (18.3%) and messaging (9.5%). The majority (70%) reported a positive impact from using it. One in five rated it as their favourite online service second only to online banking. Almost three out of four responders stated that availability of online access would influence their move to another practice. Nonetheless, responders were reluctant to award a high monetary value to it. These findings correlated with the number of long-term conditions. The majority of users place a relatively high value, but not monetary value, on the PAP and report a positive impact from using it. The potential for PAPs to enhance patient experience, especially for those with long-term conditions, appears to be largely untapped. Research exploring the reasons for non-use is also required.

1 Background

People across the globe use technology to conduct many essential and daily functions such as banking, shopping, social networking and information gathering. Increasingly, policy directives and technological innovation are also facilitating online engagement between patients and healthcare providers [1]. Patients are also demanding greater access to their own healthcare data [2]. Typically, this involves using a Patient Access Portal (PAP) that enables patients and/or carers to book appointments, make medication requests, view their medical records and send messages [3].

In the USA, two-thirds of Kaiser Permanente’s 3.4 million members have signed up for online appointment booking, email communication and test results retrieval [4, 5]. Similarly, 600,000 members of the USA’s Veterans Health Administration have registered for online services with over 20 million online visits [4]. In Sweden, recent figures indicate that national e-health services accounts have been set up by a third of the population [6, 7]. There has also been widespread uptake in Estonia and Denmark [8]. In the UK, progress in the National Health Service (NHS) has been somewhat slower, although in April 2015, the Department of Health mandated that all general practitioners (GPs) should give patients free online access to their medical records [9, 10].

A systematic review of online services in primary care [4] found that patients using PAPs reported increased convenience and satisfaction. Positive impacts on patient safety were noted. Professional concerns about privacy were unrealised, and those about workload were inconclusive. The review highlighted the paucity of studies in the British National Health System (NHS) and questioned the relevance of US-based research to the NHS while calling for further research on assessing the values patients place on online services [5]. The current study attempts to address that gap.

Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) is a leading primary care computer system which is used in over half (56%) of the general practices in the UK [11]. EMIS has a web-based PAP which went live in 2005 [12]. Subject to availability and approvals from their own practice, patients (or their carers) can register with EMIS to access the PAP to (a) book appointments, (b) submit requests of repeat medication prescriptions, (c) send/receive messages via the portal to clinical and administrative staff and (d) review their own medical record. As part of their ongoing evaluation of the PAP, EMIS designed and administered a survey to registered users, to elicit their perceived value of the PAP. EMIS conducted the initial analysis internally based on their own areas of interest. The portal is not available as a mobile application at present, and so no observations or conclusions can be made about the impact this might have on take-up and usage.

In this study, we undertook secondary analysis of the completed survey data to determine how people used the PAP and their views on its value compared to other online services such as banking and shopping. Perceived monetary value of the PAP was also assessed.

2 Methods

2.1 Design

A service user evaluation of the EMIS PAP was conducted. A cross-sectional survey was designed and administered by EMIS. Surveys were administered between 12 May 2015 and 27 June 2015 via the online Patient Portal feature in EMIS. Registered PAP users from the age of 16 upwards were invited to complete the voluntary (with no incentives) online survey. The survey could be completed by the users who were either the named patient or their carer.

The survey consisted of 17 multiple choice and two free text items (see “Appendix 1”). It captured demographic details including country of respondent, age range (see “Appendix 1”, Part 1, Questions 2 and 3 for ranges) and health conditions (informed by long-term conditions (LTC) listed in the NHS Outcomes Framework [13], see “Appendix 1” Part 1, Question 4). A survey responder was deemed to have an LTC—subsequently summed into four levels (nil, one, two, three+)—if they selected any of the conditions from the survey: being involved in a preventative programme of treatment (associated with any of the following—congestive heart failure, diabetes, asthma, angina, epilepsy, hypertension, influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dehydration or gastroenteritis—all counting as one only), diabetes, epilepsy, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, any other cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, liver disease, other long-term conditions, serious mental illness, MRSA or asthma (see “Appendix 2”). Gender, in-country location and ability to make use of individual PAP features were not captured. For example, it was not clear whether individual respondents GP practices had “switched on” all four PAP features (online appointment booking, medication requests, patient messaging, and medical record viewer).

Responders were asked to report if, how and their frequency of PAP use (four possible uses included: appointment booking, medication request, patient messaging, medical record review), perceived value of the PAP versus other online services (banking, grocery shopping, shopping, social networks, search engines), and to assign a monetary value (on an ordinal scale ranging from £0 to £10,000) to the worth of the PAP per annum, and in general, via free text. Responders could also add additional comments in free text. (Free text responses are not reported in this paper.)

2.2 Statistical analysis

Based on findings and/or insights from previous studies [1, 14, 15, 16, 17], we posited that survey responses were likely to be influenced by the reported age group (< 21 years, 21 to < 65 years, 65 to < 75 years, 75+ years), number of LTCs (nil, one, two, three+) and services used in the PAP (online appointment booking, medication request, patient messaging and medical record viewing). We tabulated all the results by the number of LTCs.

To examine the relationship between binary response variables and predictors (age group, number of LTCs and PAP functions used), we used trees which are a class of data mining tools, especially suited to identifying homogenous subgroups based on searching for nonlinear interactions [18]. In particular, we used conditional tree models using the party package [19] in R [20] by specifying p < 0.001 for statistical significance, along with a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. Tree models are shown in “Appendix 3”. Due to limitations within the survey, we were unable to report the results by gender, UK location or the number of PAP functions available in each practice and patient uptake.

3 Results

3.1 Characteristics of responders

There were 73,044 responses. Responders were excluded from analysis if they lived outside of the UK (3%, UK citizens who maintain registration with a UK GP practice, and PAP, despite country of residence) or had not completed the survey fully (12%, defined as pressing the “Finish” button to submit their answers), resulting in a total number of 62,486 included respondents. Table 1 describes the characteristics of included responders. Included responders were aged 21 to < 65 years of age (66.4% 41,393/62,486), had one LTC (46% 28,718/62,486) and completed the survey themselves (95.6% 59,798/62,486) (see Table 2 for aggregate overview and “Appendix 3” for details stratified by number of LTCs and conditions). Remaining participants with missing data for other survey questions were retained for subsequent analysis.
Table 1

Characteristics of responders

Characteristics

All (%)

Number of responders

62,486

Survey completed by

Self

59,798 (95.7)

Someone else

2307 (3.7)

Missing

381 (0.6)

Age category (years)

< 16

611 (1)

16 to < 21

832 (1.3)

21 to < 65

41,393 (66.2)

65 to < 75

14,043 (22.5)

75+

5473 (8.8)

Missing

134 (0.2)

Number of LTCs

Nil

18,513 (29.6)

One

28,718 (46.0)

Two

10,922 (17.5)

Three+

4333 (6.9)

Table 2

Overview of uses and frequency of use

Uses and frequency of use of PAP

All (%)

How often was PAP used

More than once a week

1323 (2.1)

Weekly

3914 (6.3)

Fortnightly

7564 (12.1)

Monthly

41,408 (66.3)

Every 6 months

5995 (9.6)

Yearly

1070 (1.7)

Missing

1212 (1.9)

How long have they used PAP

Less than a year

20,608 (33)

1–2 years

24,368 (39)

3+ years

17,162 (27.5)

Missing

348 (0.6)

What do they use PAP for*

Online appointment booking

48,990 (78.4)

Medication requests

53,908 (86.3)

Patient messaging

5918 (9.5)

Medical record viewer

11,418 (18.3)

Favourite online service

Banking

18,276 (29.2)

Grocery shopping

2428 (3.9)

Other online shopping

5905 (9.5)

PAP

12,480 (20)

Search engines

14,248 (22.8)

Social networking

7832 (12.5)

Missing

1212 (1.9)

Online appointment booking = selecting available dates for medical appointments at GP practice, medication requests = submitting electronic requests for repeat prescriptions of current medication, patient messaging = TBC, medical record viewer = ability to view personal record of current medication, doctor and nurse notes from appointments and any other information held, e.g. vaccination records, test results

3.2 Descriptive analysis

Most responders used the PAP monthly (66.3%) and had been using it for one to two years (39%). Medication requests were the most frequently cited function used by responders (86.3%); appointment booking was the second (78.4%). Most responders reported their favourite online service was banking (29.2%), PAP was the third (20%), behind search engines (22.8%). Most responders found PAP to be worth about the same to them as online banking (43.3%) and search engines (30.8%), and worth more than online grocery shopping (56%), online shopping (52.7%) and social media (57.1%). Most responders considered the PAP to have had a positive impact on their life (87%), and most considered it to have monetary value from at least £10 up to £10,000 (69.5%).

Tables 2 and 3 present an aggregate overview, and “Appendix 3” provides details stratified by a number of LTCs.
Table 3

Worth of PAP compared to other online services

Worth of PAP compared to other services

All (%)

Online banking

Not applicable

4864 (7.8)

Less

9843 (15.8)

Same

27,074 (43.3)

More

20,705 (33.1)

Online grocery shopping

Not applicable

12,301 (19.7)

Less

4522 (7.2)

Same

10,684 (17.1)

More

34,979 (56)

Online shopping

Not applicable

6372 (10.2)

Less

6335 (10.1)

Same

16,821 (26.9)

More

32,958 (52.7)

Online social media

Not applicable

12,416 (19.9)

Less

5347 (8.6)

Same

9050 (14.5)

More

35,673 (57.1)

Online search engines

Not applicable

6019 (9.6)

Less

12,518 (20)

Same

19,250 (30.8)

More

24,699 (39.5)

Positive impact

Yes (includes probably yes)

54,387 (87)

No (includes probably not)

4475 (7.2)

Missing/cannot say

3624 (5.8)

3.3 Tree models

The trees, all with the same covariates (age group, number of LTCs and PAP service used), are shown in “Appendix 3”.

We analysed the UK-based responders who had completed the survey (86% = 62,486/73,044, Table 1) stratified by the number of LTCs.

3.3.1 Self-completion of the survey

Age and the number of LTCs were significant predictors of self-completion; however, PAP service used was not (see tree model one). The lowest self-completion rate was amongst those under 21 (58.8% n = 1440), and the highest was of those aged 21 to < 65 years (98.8% n = 41,328) and 65 to < 75 years (96.9% n = 13,920.

3.3.2 Usage of the PAP: frequency and purpose

The reported usage included booking appointments online, medication requests, messaging and medical record viewing. Patient age, the number of LTCs and purpose of usage were significant predictors of usage patterns and age and the number of LTCs affected types of usage (see tree models two to six in “Appendix 3”).

3.3.3 Favourability and positive impact

Favourite online service was modified by PAP service used and age group. Users with two or more LTCs and using the messaging service were most likely (30.4%) to rate the PAP as their favourite online service, whereas users with nil or one LTC not using the messaging service were least likely (17.9%) to report the PAP as their favourite (see tree model 7).

Perceived positive impact of the PAP was modified by which service was used and the number of LTCs (see tree model 8). The positive impact was reported at its highest for those using the PAP for medication requests and online appointment booking (range 71.7–77.6%) though this was dependent on the number of LTCs, with responders with more than one LTC being more likely to report a positive impact. Those least likely to report a positive impact were not using medication requests (51.6%).

3.3.4 Comparability with other online services

The percentage of responders who found the PAP more valuable than other online services increased with the number of long-term conditions (see Table 4). Patient age, number of LTCs and purpose of usage predicted value ratings (see tree models 9–13 in “Appendix 3”).
Table 4

Monetary value (£) of the PAP per year

Monetary value £ sterling per year

N (%)

£0

14,041 (22.5)

£10

9869 (15.8)

£25

9284 (14.9)

£50

8384 (13.4)

£100

7745 (12.4)

£250

2889 (4.6)

£500

2113 (3.4)

£1000

1589 (2.5)

£2500

395 (0.6)

£5000

371 (0.6)

£10,000

819 (1.3)

Missing

4897 (8.0%)

3.3.5 Monetary value

A monetary value of more than £0 per annum was higher for those with medication requests and more than three LTCs (see tree model 14). This was with or without online booking (yes 82.1% n = 30,748; no 75.1% n = 9885). Also awarding it high value were those with no LTCs but using medication requests and online booking (76.7%, n = 10,424). Those least likely to value the PAP at more than £0 per annum had no LTCs, were not using online booking but still having online medication requests (67.1% n = 2851), and those not having online medication requests aged 21 to < 65 years (67.1%, n = 6466).

3.3.6 Changing doctors and the PAP

The likelihood of the availability of a PAP influencing the decision to change GP practice is shown in tree model 15. This comprised 72.3% (45,176/62,486) of respondents. This increased with the number of LTCs (range 68.7% nil LTCs to 77.4% three+ LTCs). Those most likely (82.6%, n = 8984) to respond that they would be influenced by PAP availability were those who used online booking, medication requests and medical record viewing. Those who were least likely (59.5%, n = 3268) to be influenced did not use online booking and had no LTCs.

3.3.7 Overview of significant/non-significant factors for binary response variables

Table 5 shows which factors are significant and non-significant predictors of the range of binary response variables considered in the fourteen tree models. The number of LTCs was a significant predictor in all bar one tree models (use of PAP for online messaging) as was the use of PAP for online booking in all bar two (self-completion and frequent use). The use of the PAP for medication requests was a significant predictor in all bar four tree models and patient age group in all bar five. The use of patient messaging was a significant predictor in four tree models and the use of the PAP for medical record viewing in three tree models.
Table 5

Binary response variables

Tree no.

Binary response variable

Covariates

Age group

LTC

Online booking

Medication requests

Patient messaging

Medical record viewing

1

Self-completed?

2

Frequent user?

3

Using PAP for online booking?

    

4

Using PAP for online medication requests?

    

5

Using PAP for online patient messaging?

    

6

Using PAP for online medical record viewing?

    

7

Is PAP favourite online service?

8

Has PAP had a positive impact?

9

More valuable than online banking?

10

More valuable than online grocery shopping?

11

More valuable than online shopping?

12

More valuable than online social networks?

13

More valuable than online search engines?

14

PAP is worth more than £0 per annum?

Summary of which covariates are statistically significant (tick), statistically non-significant (cross). Blank is not applicable

4 Discussion

In a relatively large cross-sectional survey of NHS users of an online PAP in the UK, we found that they use it mainly for medication requests and online appointment bookings, and, to a lesser extent, medical record viewing and messaging. The vast majority of responders reported a positive impact from using the PAP. One in five rated the PAP as their favourite online service second only to online banking. Almost three out of four responders stated that availability of online access would influence their move to another general practice. Nonetheless, responders were reluctant to award a high monetary value to the PAP although this varied according to the number of LTCs: those users with a higher number being more willing to award value.

While the survey does not ask respondents to detail or elaborate on what they count as positive impact, we would suggest that such an articulation may be consistent with previous studies which report that users view online access to medical records as a positive development [4, 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Overall, users see online access as “convenient, useful, usable and flexible” [23]. A 2014 audit of two UK primary care practices [23] who provided online access to a PAP found that users (n = 226) reported savings in time and money (from reduced travel and telephone calls) and being more active in the management of their health. This related to reviewing records online and recalling past consultations, often resulting in identifying omissions and discrepancies of information or outcomes of a consultation, and feeling more prepared for future consultations. Kruse et al. [27] in their systematic review of the effect of PAPs on quality outcomes found that patient satisfaction and patient retention were increased while Sorondo et al. [28] found improvements in mental wellbeing and lesser healthcare utilisation for patients with chronic conditions. Otte-Trojel et al. [29] suggested that PAPs—as a supplement to existing services—can result in improvements in patient behaviour and experiences, as well as clinical outcomes.

We found that responders did not place a high monetary value on the PAP. This finding aligns with studies from the US which also found that users were unwilling to pay for online services or were unwilling to pay more than a small sum [4, 5, 30]. This is despite a fundamental difference in the way in which healthcare services are paid for (cost to the patient (USA); free at the point of need (UK)). So, while users report increased satisfaction as a result of access to online services, this does not translate into a willingness to pay. We see this purely as a symbolic expression regarding value rather than one based on real monetary exchange.

We found higher usage of the PAP for medication requests and online booking of appointments compared with messaging and medical record viewing (although again it must be noted that we did not have access to data that identified enabled functions in each practice or of patient uptake). This ranking was also seen in a recent national UK GP Patient Survey (July 2017) which found that 11.8% of patients used a portal for medication requests, 8.9% for online appointment booking and 1.6% for viewing medical records (electronic messaging was not included in that survey) [31]. The same survey reports that 46.3% of patients are unsure of what online services their practices offer. The uptake of online services and the differential uptake of specific services raise important questions about access to such services. The general notion that users are not motivated or are incapable of using such services is not credible [24], suggesting, therefore, that other factors are constraining access to online services which need to be addressed. If a key constraining factor is usability from the users’ perspective, then a way forward could be to involve them in the future design of online access systems [22, 24, 32]. If, however, the constraint emanates from the healthcare provider, perhaps as a consequence of concerns about increased workloads, then this may be misplaced as the evidence is both scarce and contradictory [7, 33, 34, 35].

4.1 Strengths and limitations

Although this was a large study and one of the few that has taken place in the UK, the findings are based on the experience of those people using the PAP offered by one, albeit leading supplier of primary care computer systems, who also designed and administered the survey. In addition, although we did not have the total number of registered users or the number of GP practices that used this supplier during the time period surveyed, we used data reported by Kontopantelis et al. [11] to note that EMIS has a 56% market share and that this has remained the same since 2011. This is equivalent to 4199 practices and 32.2 million users (although obviously not all users are signed up to use the portal [36]). It must be noted, however, that this is clearly only a small proportion of the potential patient population: approximately 46 million [37]. We did not have access to data about the extent of PAP functions available, ease of use and patient uptake. This means that we do not know what services are enabled in each GP practice or of the influences which may have affected patient decisions about just what aspects of the PAP they chose to use or not use. Gender and other social characteristics were not available to us, yet evidence from other studies [4, 21, 24, 25, 38] suggests that these are important and that such factors—socioeconomic status, gender, race, social vulnerability—may affect access and usage. There is evidence to suggest that IT usage and acceptability may vary between participants within this category [33, 34, 35] most specifically in those aged 45–65 years [39]. However, trends may be changing with the proliferation of technology; for example, the latest Oxford Internet Institute study on internet usage indicates that gender is no longer a significant determinant [39].

We were, however, able to consider responses in terms of LTCs as well as the services used in the PAP. This is important as evidence from Newhouse et al. [34] suggests that as health conditions worsen the use of email by patients—where available—for healthcare communication increases. They found that email use, poor health, multimorbidity and number of physician visits are positively correlated. In addition, Palen et al. [33] found that where access to clinicians and to medical records was available, this resulted in an increase in usage of clinical services generally. This was consistent across age and chronic conditions.

Our findings will be of interest to a wide range of people—users, policy makers and healthcare professionals—and offer a timely patient-based perspective to inform ongoing attempts to enhance online services in the NHS [3]. The extent to which increased online access could mitigate the downward trend in patient satisfaction with access to GPs [31] also merits consideration, especially as 80% of general practices in England had the capability of giving the general population access to their medical records in 2014, but by 2017 only 8.9% were aware they could access their records and only 1.6% reported doing so [31]. By contrast, internet banking usage has increased from 30% (2007) to 60% (2016) [40]. Without trivialising the differences between banking and healthcare (for example the extensive advertising of online services in the banking sector), or overlooking negative consequences of online access, this striking difference in uptake of online services highlights how the former has embraced online services while the latter has lagged behind. The range of factors which influence adoption of online services is broad and includes: (1) concerns about privacy and security of data (although this does not seem to a barrier in the general practice context [4, 22]); (2) the notion that online access may increase health inequalities through uneven digital access and literacy especially amongst the elderly [3]; (3) the extent to which online access can support self-care and integration with other health and care data; (4) the extent to which online access is easy to obtain and use; (5) the extent to which online access is integrated into care processes and mitigate possible negative consequences for some patients [3, 4].

5 Conclusions

Most users place a relatively high value, though not monetary value, on the PAP and report a positive impact from using it. The potential for PAPs to enhance patient experience, especially for those with long-term conditions, appears to be largely untapped. Research and development addressing the reasons for non-use are also required.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to EMIS for providing the survey data.

Author contributions

MAM and MF undertook the analysis. MAM and JM produced the first draft of the manuscript. LL contributed to the writing of the final version manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

This type of study does not require ethical approval (University of Bradford Ethics Checklist: EC24675) because it meets the exemption criteria “Research limited to secondary use of information previously collected in the course of normal care (without an intention to use it for research at the time of collection), provided that the users or service users are not identifiable to the research team in carrying out the research” [41].

References

  1. 1.
    Marshall, P.: Keeping tabs. How personal health records are changing the face of healthcare. Mark. Health Serv. 29, 20–25 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cayton, H.: Introduction. In: Better information, better choices, better health. Department of Health, London (2004). http://www.formazione.eu.com/_documents/consenso/documenti/better%20information.pdf
  3. 3.
    Pagliari, C., Detmer, D., Singleton, P.: Potential of electronic personal health records. BMJ 335, 330–333 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39279.482963.AD CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mold, F., de Lusignan, S., Sheikh, A., Majeed, A., Wyatt, J.C., Quinn, T., Cavill, M., Franco, C., Chauhan, U., Blakey, H., Kataria, N., Arvanitis, T.N., Ellis, B.: Patients’ online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic review in primary care. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 65, e141–e151 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683941 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Lusignan, S., Mold, F., Sheikh, A., Majeed, A., Wyatt, J.C., Quinn, T., Cavill, M., Gronlund, T.A., Franco, C., Chauhan, U., Blakey, H., Kataria, N., Barker, F., Ellis, B., Koczan, P., Arvanitis, T.N., McCarthy, M., Jones, S., Rafi, I.: Patients’ online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic interpretative review. BMJ Open 4, e006021 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Armstrong, S.: Patient access to health records: striving for the Swedish ideal. BMJ 357, j2069 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.J2069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marschang, S.: Health inequalities and eHealth. Report of the eHealth Stakeholder Group. Final version 21 February 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Personalised health and care 2020 using data and technology to transform outcomes for patients and citizens a framework for action (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kontopantelis, E., Stevens, R.J., Helms, P.J., Edwards, D., Doran, T., Ashcroft, D.M.: Spatial distribution of clinical computer systems in primary care in England in 2016 and implications for primary care electronic medical record databases: a cross-sectional population study. BMJ Open 8, e020738 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EMIS Celebrates UK’s first electronic patient record transfer | EMIS Health. https://www.emishealth.com/news-events/news/emis-celebrates-uk-s-first-electronic-patient-record-transfer
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Mandl, K.D., Markwell, D., MacDonald, R., Szolovits, P., Kohane, I.S.: Public standards and patients’ control: how to keep electronic medical records accessible but private. BMJ 322, 283–287 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stroetmann, V.N., Hüsing, T., Kubitschke, L., Stroetmann, K.A.: The attitudes, expectations and needs of elderly people in relation to e-health applications: results from a European survey. J. Telemed. Telecare 8, 82–84 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X020080S238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenhalgh, T., Hinder, S., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., Russell, J.: Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace. BMJ 341, c5814 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abaidoo, B., Larweh, B.T.: Consumer health informatics: the application of ICT in improving patient-provider partnership for a better health care. Online J. Public Health Inform. 6, e188 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.5210/ojphi.v6i2.4903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Podgorelec, V., Kokol, P., Stiglic, B., Rozman, I.: Decision trees: an overview and their use in medicine. J. Med. Syst. 26, 445–463 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016409317640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., Zeileis, A.: Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15, 651–674 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    R Development Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ross, S.E., Lin, C.-T.: The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10, 129–138 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m1147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zuniga, A.V.: Patient access to electronic health records: strengths, weaknesses and what’s needed to move forward. SLIS Student Res. J. 5, 3 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shah, S.G.S., Fitton, R., Hannan, A., Fisher, B., Young, T., Barnett, J.: Accessing personal medical records online: a means to what ends? Int. J. Med. Inform. 84, 111–118 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zarcadoolas, C., Vaughon, W.L., Czaja, S.J., Levy, J., Rockoff, M.L.: Consumers’ perceptions of patient-accessible electronic medical records. J. Med. Internet Res. 15, e168 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gerber, D.E., Laccetti, A.L., Chen, B., Yan, J., Cai, J., Gates, S., Xie, Y., Lee, S.J.C.: Predictors and intensity of online access to electronic medical records among patients with cancer. J. Oncol. Pract. 10, e307–e312 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2013.001347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldzweig, C.L., Orshansky, G., Paige, N.M., Towfigh, A.A., Haggstrom, D.A., Miake-Lye, I., Beroes, J.M., Shekelle, P.G.: Electronic patient portals: evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency, and attitudes. Ann. Intern. Med. 159, 677 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-10-201311190-00006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kruse, C.S., Bolton, K., Freriks, G.: The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 17, e44 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sorondo, B., Allen, A., Fathima, S., Bayleran, J., Sabbagh, I.: Patient portal as a tool for enhancing patient experience and improving quality of care in primary care practices. eGEMS (Washington, DC) 4, 1262 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Otte-Trojel, T., De Bont, A., Rundall, T.G., Van De Klundert, J.: What do we know about developing patient portals? A systematic literature review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    E-health services US adults would be willing to pay for 2017 | Survey. https://www.statista.com/statistics/242961/mhealth-doctors-and-payers-changes-2012/
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Ahern, D.K., Woods, S.S., Lightowler, M.C., Finley, S.W., Houston, T.K.: Promise of and potential for patient-facing technologies to enable meaningful use. Am. J. Prev. Med. 40, S162–S172 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Palen, T.E., Ross, C., Powers, J.D., Xu, S.: Association of online patient access to clinicians and medical records with use of clinical services. JAMA 308, 2012 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.14126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Newhouse, N., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Codagnone, C., Atherton, H.: Patient use of email for health care communication purposes across 14 European countries: an analysis of users according to demographic and health-related factors. J. Med. Internet Res. 17, e58 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meng, D., Palen, T.E., Tsai, J., McLeod, M., Garrido, T., Qian, H.: Association between secure patient-clinician email and clinical services utilisation in a US integrated health system: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 5, e009557 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    General and Personal Medical Services, England 2006–2016, as at 30 September, Experimental statistics—NHS Digital. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/general-and-personal-medical-services/2006-2016-as-at-30-september-experimental-statistics
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Megan Forster, M., Dennison, K., Callen, J., Andrew, A., Westbrook, J.I.: Maternity patients’ access to their electronic medical records: use and perspectives of a patient portal. HIM J. 44, 4–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    William H: Cultures of the internet: the internet in BritainGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    NHS Health Research Authority: Governance arrangements for research ethics committees. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/resources/research-legislation-and-governance/governance-arrangements-for-research-ethics-committees/

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed A. Mohammed
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jane Montague
    • 1
  • Muhammad Faisal
    • 1
    • 3
  • Laura Lamming
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Health StudiesUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK
  2. 2.The Strategy UnitNHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support UnitLeylandUK
  3. 3.Bradford Institute for Health ResearchBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations