skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702392acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design Considerations for Patient Portal Adoption by Low-Income, Older Adults

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the results of an interview study investigating facilitators and barriers to adoption of patient portals among low-income, older adults in rural and urban populations in the southeastern USA. We describe attitudes of this population of older adults and their current level of technology use and patient portal use. From qualitative analysis of 36 patient interviews and 16 caregiver interviews within these communities, we derive themes related to benefits of portals, barriers to use, concerns and desired features. Based on our initial findings, we present a set of considerations for designing the patient portal user experience, aimed at helping healthcare clinics to meet U.S. federally-mandated `meaningful use' requirements.

References

  1. Rural-urban continuum codes, 2013. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ rural-urban-continuum-codes.aspx#.VAW_UmRdW-S {Online; accessed 2-Sept-2014}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Step 5: Achieve meaningful use, 2014. http: //www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/ step-5-achieve-meaningful-use-stage-2 {Online; accessed 2-Sept-2014}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahern, D. K., Woods, S. S., Lightowler, M. C., Finley, S. W., and Houston, T. K. Promise of and potential for patient-facing technologies to enable meaningful use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40, 5 (2011), S162--S172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ancker, J. S., Barrón, Y., Rockoff, M. L., Hauser, D., Pichardo, M., Szerencsy, A., and Calman, N. Use of an electronic patient portal among disadvantaged populations. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26, 10 (2011), 1117--1123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Arcury, T. A., and Quandt, S. A. Qualitative methods in arthritis research: sampling and data analysis. Arthritis & Rheumatism 11, 1 (1998), 66--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Arcury, T. A., and Quandt, S. A. Participant recruitment for qualitative research: A site-based approach to community research in complex societies. Human Organization 58, 2 (1999), 128--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Baird, A., North, F., and Raghu, T. S. Personal health records (phr) and the future of the physician-patient relationship. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, iConference '11, ACM (2011), 281--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C., and Blumenthal, D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Affairs 30, 3 (2011), 464--471.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Fruhling, A. Perceptions of e-health in rural communities. Patient-Centered E-Health (2008), 157--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Goel, M. S., Brown, T. L., Williams, A., Cooper, A. J., Hasnain-Wynia, R., and Baker, D. W. Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 18, 1 (2011), 8--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Greysen, S., Chin, G. C., Sudore, R., Cenzer, I., and Covinsky, K. Functional impairment and internet use among older adults: Implications for meaningful use of patient portals. JAMA Internal Medicine (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Hoffman, D. L., and Novak, T. P. Bridging the racial divide on the internet. Science 280, 5362 (1998), 390--391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Kellermann, A. L., and Jones, S. S. What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology. Health Affairs 32, 1 (2013), 63--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kim, E.-H., Stolyar, A., Lober, W. B., Herbaugh, A. L., Shinstrom, S. E., Zierler, B. K., Soh, C. B., and Kim, Y. Usage patterns of a personal health record by elderly and disabled users. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, vol. 2007, American Medical Informatics Association (2007), 409--413.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein, R. An empirical examination of patient-physician portal acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems 16, 6 (2007), 751--760.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kumar, S., and Aldrich, K. Overcoming barriers to electronic medical record (EMR) implementation in the us healthcare system: A comparative study. Health informatics journal 16, 4 (2010), 306--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Liu, L. S., Shih, P. C., and Hayes, G. R. Barriers to the adoption and use of personal health record systems. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, iConference '11, ACM (2011), 363--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Luborsky, M. R. The identification and analysis of themes and patterns. Sage Publications, Inc, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mauro, A., and de Quiros, F. G. B. Patient-centered e-health design. Patient-Centered E-Health: Medical Info Science Reference (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Milewski, J., and Parra, H. Gathering requirements for a personal health management system. In CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '11, ACM (2011), 2377--2382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Moyer, C. A., Stern, D. T., Dobias, K. S., Cox, D. T., and Katz, S. J. Bridging the electronic divide: patient and provider perspectives on e-mail communication in primary care. The American Journal of Managed Care 8, 5 (2002), 427--433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Or, C. K., and Karsh, B.-T. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 16, 4 (2009), 550--560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Pai, F.-Y., and Huang, K.-I. Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78, 4 (2011), 650--660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Pang, C. E., Neustaedter, C., Riecke, B. E., Oduor, E., and Hillman, S. Technology preferences and routines for sharing health information during the treatment of a chronic illness. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2013, ACM (2013), 1759--1768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Pratt, W., Unruh, K., Civan, A., and Skeels, M. M. Personal health information management. Communications of the ACM 49, 1 (2006), 51--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ruland, C. M., Brynhi, H., Andersen, R., and Bryhni, T. Developing a shared electronic health record for patients and clinicians. Studies in health technology and informatics 136 (2008), 57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Simon, S. R., Evans, J. S., Benjamin, A., Delano, D., and Bates, D. W. Patients attitudes toward electronic health information exchange: qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet research 11, 3 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sun, S., Zhou, X., Denny, J. C., Rosenbloom, T. S., and Xu, H. Messaging to your doctors: Understanding patient-provider communications via a portal system. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2013, CHI '13, ACM (2013), 1739--1748. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Tang, P. C., Ash, J. S., Bates, D. W., Overhage, J. M., and Sands, D. Z. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 13, 2 (2006), 121--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Wilson, E. V., and Lankton, N. K. Modeling patients' acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 11, 4 (2004), 241--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Wilson, E. V., and Lankton, N. K. Predicting patients use of provider-delivered e-health: The role of facilitating conditions. Patient-centered e-health (2009), 217--229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Yagil, D., Cohen, M., and Beer, J. D. Older adults coping with the stress involved in the use of everyday technologies. Journal of Applied Gerontology (2013), 0733464813515089.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Zickmund, S. L., Hess, R., Bryce, C. L., McTigue, K., Olshansky, E., Fitzgerald, K., and Fischer, G. S. Interest in the use of computerized patient portals: role of the provider-patient relationship. Journal of General Internal Medicine 23, 1 (2008), 20--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Design Considerations for Patient Portal Adoption by Low-Income, Older Adults

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2015
      4290 pages
      ISBN:9781450331456
      DOI:10.1145/2702123

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader