Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:35:30.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PATIENT WEB PORTALS AND PATIENT–PROVIDER RELATIONSHIPS: A SUMMARY PERSPECTIVE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2017

Hannah D. Caldwell ,
Neil B. Minkoff  and
Kalyani Murthy
Hannah D. Caldwell
Affiliation:
Department of General Internal Medicine, Lahey Hospital & Medical Centerhannah.d.caldwell@lahey.org
Neil B. Minkoff
Affiliation:
EmpiraMed
Kalyani Murthy
Affiliation:
Department of General Internal Medicine, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Patient Web portals (PWPs) have been gaining traction as a means to collect patient-reported outcomes and maintain quality patient care between office visits. PWPs have the potential to impact patient–provider relationships by rendering additional channels for communication outside of clinic visits and could help in the management of common chronic medical conditions. Studies documenting their effect in primary care settings are limited. This perspective aims to summarize the benefits and drawbacks of using PWPs in the management of chronic conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and asthma, focusing on communication, disease management, compliance, potential barriers, and the impact on patient–provider dynamic. After a review of these topics, we present potential future directions.

Methods: We conducted an exploratory PubMed search of the literature published from inception through December 2015, and focused our subsequent searches specifically to assess benefits and drawbacks of using PWPs in the management of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and asthma.

Results: Our search revealed several potential benefits of PWP implementation in the management of chronic conditions with regards to patient–provider relationships, such as improved communication, disease management, and compliance. We also noted drawbacks such as potentially unreliable reporting, barriers to use, and increased workload.

Conclusions: PWPs offer opportunities for patients to report symptoms and outcomes in a timely manner and allow for secure online communication with providers. Despite the drawbacks noted, the overall benefits from successful PWP implementation could improve patient–provider relationships and help in the management of chronic conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and asthma.

Keywords

CommunicationPrimary careChronic diseaseDoctor–patient relations
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , 2017 , pp. 63 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm193282.pdf (accessed April 11, 2016).Google Scholar
2. Coons, SJ, Gwaltney, CJ, Hays, RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Basch, E, Deal, AM, Kris, MG, et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:557–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Berry, DL, Blumenstein, BA, Halpenny, B, et al. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1029–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Fiks, AG, Mayne, SL, Karavite, DJ, et al. Parent-reported outcomes of a shared decision-making portal in asthma: A practice-based RCT. Pediatrics. 2015;135:e965–e973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Bernocchi, P, Scalvini, S, Bertacchini, F, Rivadossi, F, Muiesan, ML. Home based telemedicine intervention for patients with uncontrolled hypertension–A real life non-randomized study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Green, BB, Cook, AJ, Ralston, JD, et al. Effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring, Web communication, and pharmacist care on hypertension control: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:2857–2867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. McKinstry, B, Hanley, J, Wild, S, et al. Telemonitoring based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f3030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Lau, M, Campbell, H, Tang, T, Thompson, DJ, Elliott, T. Impact of patient use of an online patient portal on diabetes outcomes. Can J Diabetes. 2014;38:17–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Osborn, CY, Mayberry, LS, Mulvaney, SA, Hess, R. Patient web portals to improve diabetes outcomes: A systematic review. Curr Diab Rep. 2010;10:422–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2012 State and National Summary Tables. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2012_namcs_web_tables.pdf (accessed December 2, 2016).Google Scholar
12. Thom, DH, Kravitz, RL, Bell, RA, Krupac, E, Azari, R. Patient trust in the physician: Relationship to patient requests. Fam Pract. 2002;19:476–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Das, A, Faxvaag, A, Svanæs, D. The impact of an eHealth portal on health care professionals' interaction with patients: Qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Tai-Seale, M, McGuire, TG, Zhang, W. Time allocation in primary care office visits. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1871–1894.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Akram, K, Pedersen-Bjergaard, U, Borch-Johnsen, K, Thorsteinsson, B. Recall of severe hypoglycaemic episodes and course of hypoglycaemia awareness in insulin treated type 2 diabetes in one year follow-up (Abstract). Diabetologia. 2003;46:A304.Google Scholar
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2011 Emergency Department Summary Tables. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/nhamcs_emergency/2011_ed_web_tables.pdf (accessed April 11, 2016).Google Scholar
17. Vietri, JT, Wlodarczyk, CS, Lorenzo, R, Rajpathak, S. Missed doses of oral antihyperglycemic medications in US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Prevalence and self-reported reasons. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:1519–1527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Agarwal, R, Bills, JE, Hecht, TJ, Light, RP. Role of home blood pressure monitoring in overcoming therapeutic inertia and improving hypertension control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension. 2011;57:29–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Bheekie, A, Syce, JA, Weinberg, EG. Peak expiratory flow rate and symptom self-monitoring of asthma initiated from community pharmacies. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001;26:287–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Stirratt, MJ, Dunbar-Jacob, J, Crane, HM, et al. Self-report measures of medication adherence behavior: Recommendations on optimal use. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5:470–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Internet Live Stats. Internet Users by Country (2016). http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/ (accessed April 11, 2016).Google Scholar
22. Pew Research Center. U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/03/PI_Smartphones_0401151.pdf (accessed April 15, 2016).Google Scholar
23. Harle, CA, Listhaus, A, Covarrubias, CM, et al. Overcoming barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record: A case report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23:74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Foster, JM, Smith, L, Usherwood, T, Sawyer, SM, Rand, CS, Reddel, HK. The reliability and patient acceptability of the SmartTrack device: A new electronic monitor and reminder device for metered dose inhalers. J Asthma. 2012;49:657–662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Årsand, E, Frøisland, DH, Skrøvseth, SO, et al. Mobile health applications to assist patients with diabetes: Lessons learned and design implications. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;1;6:1197–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar