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":"Abstract 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.","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":"1","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\":\"Abstract 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.\",\"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\":\"1\",\"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.
Abstract 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.