Kelly T Gleason, Danielle S Powell, Aleksandra Wec, Xingyuan Zou, Mary Jo Gamper, Danielle Peereboom, Jennifer L Wolff
{"title":"患者门静脉干预:对患者门静脉干预的功能、使用的自动化和治疗要素的范围审查。","authors":"Kelly T Gleason, Danielle S Powell, Aleksandra Wec, Xingyuan Zou, Mary Jo Gamper, Danielle Peereboom, Jennifer L Wolff","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to understand the objectives, targeted populations, therapeutic elements, and delivery characteristics of patient portal interventions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Following Arksey and O-Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a scoping review of manuscripts published through June 2022 by hand and systematically searching PubMed, PSYCHInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. The search yielded 5403 manuscripts; 248 were selected for full-text review; 81 met the eligibility criteria for examining outcomes of a patient portal intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 81 articles described: trials involving comparison groups (<i>n</i> = 37; 45.7%), quality improvement initiatives (<i>n</i> = 15; 18.5%), pilot studies (<i>n</i> = 7; 8.6%), and single-arm studies (<i>n</i> = 22; 27.2%). Studies were conducted in primary care (<i>n</i> = 33, 40.7%), specialty outpatient (<i>n</i> = 24, 29.6%), or inpatient settings (<i>n</i> = 4, 4.9%)-or they were deployed system wide (<i>n</i> = 9, 11.1%). Interventions targeted specific health conditions (<i>n</i> = 35, 43.2%), promoted preventive services (<i>n</i> = 19, 23.5%), or addressed communication (<i>n</i> = 19, 23.4%); few specifically sought to improve the patient experience (<i>n</i> = 3, 3.7%). About half of the studies (<i>n</i> = 40, 49.4%) relied on human involvement, and about half involved personalized (vs exclusively standardized) elements (<i>n</i> = 42, 51.8%). Interventions commonly collected patient-reported information (<i>n</i> = 36, 44.4%), provided education (<i>n</i> = 35, 43.2%), or deployed preventive service reminders (<i>n</i> = 14, 17.3%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This scoping review finds that most patient portal interventions have delivered education or facilitated collection of patient-reported information. Few interventions have involved pragmatic designs or been deployed system wide.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The patient portal is an important tool in real-world efforts to more effectively support patients, but interventions to date rely largely on evidence from consented participants rather than pragmatically implemented systems-level initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"6 3","pages":"ooad077"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a9/a9/ooad077.PMC10469545.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient portal interventions: a scoping review of functionality, automation used, and therapeutic elements of patient portal interventions.\",\"authors\":\"Kelly T Gleason, Danielle S Powell, Aleksandra Wec, Xingyuan Zou, Mary Jo Gamper, Danielle Peereboom, Jennifer L Wolff\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to understand the objectives, targeted populations, therapeutic elements, and delivery characteristics of patient portal interventions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Following Arksey and O-Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a scoping review of manuscripts published through June 2022 by hand and systematically searching PubMed, PSYCHInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. The search yielded 5403 manuscripts; 248 were selected for full-text review; 81 met the eligibility criteria for examining outcomes of a patient portal intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 81 articles described: trials involving comparison groups (<i>n</i> = 37; 45.7%), quality improvement initiatives (<i>n</i> = 15; 18.5%), pilot studies (<i>n</i> = 7; 8.6%), and single-arm studies (<i>n</i> = 22; 27.2%). Studies were conducted in primary care (<i>n</i> = 33, 40.7%), specialty outpatient (<i>n</i> = 24, 29.6%), or inpatient settings (<i>n</i> = 4, 4.9%)-or they were deployed system wide (<i>n</i> = 9, 11.1%). Interventions targeted specific health conditions (<i>n</i> = 35, 43.2%), promoted preventive services (<i>n</i> = 19, 23.5%), or addressed communication (<i>n</i> = 19, 23.4%); few specifically sought to improve the patient experience (<i>n</i> = 3, 3.7%). About half of the studies (<i>n</i> = 40, 49.4%) relied on human involvement, and about half involved personalized (vs exclusively standardized) elements (<i>n</i> = 42, 51.8%). Interventions commonly collected patient-reported information (<i>n</i> = 36, 44.4%), provided education (<i>n</i> = 35, 43.2%), or deployed preventive service reminders (<i>n</i> = 14, 17.3%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This scoping review finds that most patient portal interventions have delivered education or facilitated collection of patient-reported information. Few interventions have involved pragmatic designs or been deployed system wide.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The patient portal is an important tool in real-world efforts to more effectively support patients, but interventions to date rely largely on evidence from consented participants rather than pragmatically implemented systems-level initiatives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMIA Open\",\"volume\":\"6 3\",\"pages\":\"ooad077\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a9/a9/ooad077.PMC10469545.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMIA Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient portal interventions: a scoping review of functionality, automation used, and therapeutic elements of patient portal interventions.
Objectives: We sought to understand the objectives, targeted populations, therapeutic elements, and delivery characteristics of patient portal interventions.
Materials and methods: Following Arksey and O-Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a scoping review of manuscripts published through June 2022 by hand and systematically searching PubMed, PSYCHInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. The search yielded 5403 manuscripts; 248 were selected for full-text review; 81 met the eligibility criteria for examining outcomes of a patient portal intervention.
Results: The 81 articles described: trials involving comparison groups (n = 37; 45.7%), quality improvement initiatives (n = 15; 18.5%), pilot studies (n = 7; 8.6%), and single-arm studies (n = 22; 27.2%). Studies were conducted in primary care (n = 33, 40.7%), specialty outpatient (n = 24, 29.6%), or inpatient settings (n = 4, 4.9%)-or they were deployed system wide (n = 9, 11.1%). Interventions targeted specific health conditions (n = 35, 43.2%), promoted preventive services (n = 19, 23.5%), or addressed communication (n = 19, 23.4%); few specifically sought to improve the patient experience (n = 3, 3.7%). About half of the studies (n = 40, 49.4%) relied on human involvement, and about half involved personalized (vs exclusively standardized) elements (n = 42, 51.8%). Interventions commonly collected patient-reported information (n = 36, 44.4%), provided education (n = 35, 43.2%), or deployed preventive service reminders (n = 14, 17.3%).
Discussion: This scoping review finds that most patient portal interventions have delivered education or facilitated collection of patient-reported information. Few interventions have involved pragmatic designs or been deployed system wide.
Conclusion: The patient portal is an important tool in real-world efforts to more effectively support patients, but interventions to date rely largely on evidence from consented participants rather than pragmatically implemented systems-level initiatives.