Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Conditions potentially sensitive to a Personal Health Record (PHR) intervention, a systematic review

Authors: Morgan Price, Paule Bellwood, Nicole Kitson, Iryna Davies, Jens Weber, Francis Lau

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Personal Health Records (PHRs) are electronic health records controlled, shared or maintained by patients to support patient centered care. The potential for PHRs to transform health care is significant; however, PHRs do not always achieve their potential. One reason for this may be that not all health conditions are sensitive to the PHR as an intervention. The goal of this review was to discover which conditions were potentially sensitive to the PHR as an intervention, that is, what conditions have empirical evidence of benefit from PHR-enabled management.

Methods

A systematic review of Medline and CINAHL was completed to find articles assessing PHR use and benefit from 2008 to 2014 in specific health conditions. Two researchers independently screened and coded articles. Health conditions with evidence of benefit from PHR use were identified from the included studies.

Results

23 papers were included. Seven papers were RCTs. Ten health conditions were identified, seven of which had documented benefit associated with PHR use: asthma, diabetes, fertility, glaucoma, HIV, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. Reported benefits were seen in terms of care quality, access, and productivity, although many benefits were measured by self-report through quasi-experimental studies. No study examined morbidity/mortality. No study reported harm from the PHR.

Conclusion

There is a small body of condition specific evidence that has been published. Conditions with evidence of benefit when using PHRs tended to be chronic conditions with a feedback loop between monitoring in the PHR and direct behaviours that could be self-managed. These findings can point to other potentially PHR sensitive health conditions and guide PHR designers, implementers, and researchers. More research is needed to link PHR design, features, adoption and health outcomes to better understand how and if PHRs are making a difference to health outcomes.
Literature
1.
2.
Agarwal G. Personal health records–an overview of the changing face of family practice. Fam Pract. 2013;30:363–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Ball MJ, Smith C, Bakalar RS. Personal health records: empowering consumers. J Healthc Inform Manag. 2007;21:76–86.
4.
5.
Tenforde M, Jain A, Hickner J. The value of personal health records for chronic disease management: what do we know? Fam Med. 2011;43:351.PubMed
6.
Logue MD, Effken JA. Modeling factors that influence personal health records adoption. Comput Informat Nurs. 2012;30(7):354–62.
7.
Ko H, Turner T, Jones C, Hill C. Patient-held medical records for patients with chronic disease: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2010;19:e41–1.CrossRef
8.
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. 2010;341:c5814–3111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Tang P, Ash J, Bates D, Overhage J, Sands D. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;13:121–6.
10.
Johnston D, Kaelber D, Pan EC, Bu D, Shah S, Hook JM, et al. A framework and approach for assessing the value of personal health records (PHRs). AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:374–378.
11.
Goldzweig CL, Towfigh AA, Paige NM, Orshansky G, Haggstrom DA, Beroes JM, et al. Systematic Review: Secure Messaging Between Providers and Patients, and Patients’ Access to Their Own Medical Record: Evidence on Health Outcomes, Satisfaction, Efficiency and Attitudes. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2012.
12.
13.
Johansen MA, Henriksen E, Horsch A, Schuster T, Berntsen GKR. Electronic symptom reporting between patient and provider for improved health care service quality: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Part 1: state of the art. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Ennis L, Rose D, Callard F, Denis M, Wykes T. Rapid progress or lengthy process? electronic personal health records in mental health. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Koch S, Vimarlund V. Critical advances in bridging personal health informatics and clinical informatics. Yearb Med Inform. 2012;7(1):48–55.PubMed
16.
Hordern A, Georgiou A, Whetton S, Prgomet M. Consumer e-health: an overview of research evidence and implications for future policy. HIM J. 2011;40:6–14.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Solomon M, Wagner SL, Goes J. Effects of a web-based intervention for adults with chronic conditions on patient activation: online randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Sobko H. Associations Among Measures Of Engagement With Kp.Org And Clinical Outcomes. Birmingham: University of Alabama; 2011. p. 1–239.
20.
Grant RW, Wald JS, Schnipper JL, Gandhi TK, Poon EG, Orav EJ, et al. Practice-linked online personal health records for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1776–82.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Urowitz S, Wiljer D, Dupak K, Kuehner Z, Leonard K, Lovrics E, et al. Improving diabetes management with a patient portal: a qualitative study of diabetes self-management portal. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000387.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications-some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64:39–56.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004. JAMA. 2006;295:1549–55.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA. 2012;307:491–7.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Matthias Lenz TRIM. The morbidity and mortality associated with overweight and obesity in adulthood: a systematic review. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106:641.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Reilly JJ, Kelly J. Long-term impact of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature mortality in adulthood: systematic review. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2010;35:891–8.CrossRef
29.
Rodrigues JJPC, Lopes IMC, Silva BMC, de Torre I L. A new mobile ubiquitous computing application to control obesity: SapoFit. Inform Health Soc Care. 2013;38:37–53.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Breton ER, Fuemmeler BF, Abroms LC. Weight loss—there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices? Behav Med Pract Policy Res. 2011;1:523–9.CrossRef
31.
32.
Lau F, Hagens S, Muttitt S. A proposed benefits evaluation framework for health information systems in Canada. Healthc Q. 2007;10:112-6-118.
33.
Wiljer D, Leonard KJ, Urowitz S, Apatu E, Massey C, Quartey NK, et al. The anxious wait: assessing the impact of patient accessible EHRs for breast cancer patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Wade-Vuturo AE, Mayberry LS, Osborn CY. Secure messaging and diabetes management: experiences and perspectives of patient portal users. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:519–25.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Tenforde M, Nowacki A, Jain A, Hickner J. The association between personal health record use and diabetes quality measures. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;27:420–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Wald JS, Businger A, Gandhi TK, Grant RW, Poon EG, Schnipper JL, et al. Implementing practice-linked pre-visit electronic journals in primary care: patient and physician use and satisfaction. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:502–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Hess R, Fischer GS, Sullivan SM, Dong X, Weimer M, Zeith C, et al. Patterns of response to patient-centered decision support through a personal health record. Telemed e Health. 2014;20:984–9.CrossRef
38.
Fonda SJ, McMahon GT, Gomes HE. Changes in diabetes distress related to participation in an internet-based diabetes care management program and glycemic control. J Diabet Sci Technol. 2009;3(1):117–24.CrossRef
39.
Lau M, Campbell H, Tang T, Thompson DJS, Elliott T. Impact of patient use of an online patient portal on diabetes outcomes. Can J Diabetes. 2014;38:17–21.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Sarkar U, Lyles CR, Parker MM, Allen J, Nguyen R, Moffet HH, et al. Use of the refill function through an online patient portal is associated with improved adherence to statins in an integrated health system. Med Care. 2014;52:194–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Wald JS, Grant RW, Schnipper JL, Gandhi TK, Poon EG, Businger AC, et al. Survey analysis of patient experience using a practice-linked PHR for type 2 diabetes mellitus. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009;2009:678–82.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
van Empel IWH, Hermens RPMG, Akkermans RP, Hollander KWP, Nelen WLDM, Kremer JAM. Organizational determinants of patient-centered fertility care: a multilevel analysis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:513–9.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Boland MV, Chang DS, Frazier T, Plyler R, Jefferys JL, Friedman DS. Automated telecommunication-based reminders and adherence with once-daily glaucoma medication dosing: the automated dosing reminder study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:845–50.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Crouch P-C. Patient Activation in HIV-Infected Veterans Who Use Electronic Personal Health Records. San Francisco: University of California; 2014. p. 1–77.
45.
Gordon P, Camhi E, Hesse R, Odlum M, Schnall R, Rodriguez M, et al. Processes and outcomes of developing a continuity of care document for use as a personal health record by people living with HIV/AIDS in New York City. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81:e63–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Kahn JS, Hilton JF, Van Nunnery T, Leasure S, Bryant KM, Hare CB, et al. Personal health records in a public hospital: experience at the HIV/AIDS clinic at San Francisco General Hospital. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:224–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
McInnes DK, Shimada SL, Rao SR, Quill A, Duggal M, Gifford AL, et al. Personal health record use and its association with antiretroviral adherence: survey and medical record data from 1871 US veterans infected with HIV. AIDS Behav. 2013;17:3091–100.CrossRef
48.
Shade SB, Steward WT, Koester KA, Chakravarty D, Myers JJ. Health information technology interventions enhance care completion, engagement in HIV care and treatment, and viral suppression among HIV-infected patients in publicly funded settings. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014.
49.
Wagner PJ, Dias J, Howard S, Kintziger KW, Hudson MF, Seol Y-H, et al. Personal health records and hypertension control: a randomized trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:626–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Chiche L, Brescianini A, Mancini J, Servy H, Durand J-M. Evaluation of a prototype electronic personal health record for patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2012;6:725–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Miller DM, Moore SM, Fox RJ, Atreja A, Fu AZ, Lee J-C, et al. Web-based self-management for patients with multiple sclerosis: a practical, randomized trial. Telemed e Health. 2011;17:5–13.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Conditions potentially sensitive to a Personal Health Record (PHR) intervention, a systematic review
Authors
Morgan Price
Paule Bellwood
Nicole Kitson
Iryna Davies
Jens Weber
Francis Lau
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0159-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Assessing measures of comorbidity and functional status for risk adjustment to compare hospital performance for colorectal cancer surgery: a retrospective data-linkage study

Research article

Predicting postoperative complications of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in elderly patients using random forest algorithm model

Research article

Grid multi-category response logistic models

Research article

A user needs assessment to inform health information exchange design and implementation

Research article

Basic ICT adoption and use by general practitioners: an analysis of primary care systems in 31 European countries

Research article

Patient and public views about the security and privacy of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study