Personal health records in the Netherlands: potential user preferences quantified by a discrete choice experiment

Objective To identify groups of potential users based on their preferences for characteristics of personal health records (PHRs) and to estimate potential PHR uptake. Methods We performed a discrete choice experiment, which consisted of 12 choice scenarios, each comprising 2 hypothetical PHR alternatives and an opt-out. The alternatives differed based on 5 characteristics. The survey was administered to Internet panel members of the Dutch Federation of Patients and Consumer Organizations. We used latent class models to analyze the data. Results A total of 1,443 potential PHR users completed the discrete choice experiment. We identified 3 latent classes: "refusers" (class probability 43%), "eager adopters" (37%), and "reluctant adopters" (20%). The predicted uptake for the reluctant adopters ranged from 4% in the case of a PHR with the worst attribute levels to 68% in the best case. Those with 1 or more chronic diseases were significantly more likely to belong to the eager adopter class. The data storage provider was the most decisive aspect for the eager and reluctant adopters, while cost was most decisive for the refusers. Across all classes, health care providers and independent organizations were the most preferred data storage providers. Conclusion We identified 3 groups, of which 1 group (more than one-third of potential PHR users) indicated great interest in a PHR irrespective of PHR characteristics. Policymakers who aim to expand the use of PHRs will be most successful when health care providers and health facilities or independent organizations store PHR data while refraining from including market parties.

[1]  Adam Bosworth,et al.  What it takes: characteristics of the ideal personal health record. , 2009, Health affairs.

[2]  Sharon E. Straus,et al.  Personal health records: a scoping review , 2011, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[3]  Elske Ammenwerth,et al.  The Impact of Electronic Patient Portals on Patient Care: A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[4]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. , 2007, Health economics.

[5]  J. Sidorov It Ain't Necessarily So: The Electronic Health Record And The Unlikely Prospect Of Reducing Health Care Costs. , 2006, Health affairs.

[6]  K. Lancaster A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[7]  Urmimala Sarkar,et al.  Barriers and Facilitators to Online Portal Use Among Patients and Caregivers in a Safety Net Health Care System: A Qualitative Study , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[8]  Ebrahim Randeree,et al.  Exploring technology impacts of Healthcare 2.0 initiatives. , 2009, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[9]  Eric C. Pan,et al.  The Value of Personal Health Record (PHR) Systems , 2008, AMIA.

[10]  Yan Zhang,et al.  Designing Patient-Centered Personal Health Records (PHRs): Health Care Professionals’ Perspective on Patient-Generated Data , 2012, Journal of Medical Systems.

[11]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[12]  Christopher Pearce,et al.  A personally controlled electronic health record for Australia , 2014, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[13]  Jack Tsai,et al.  Use of the internet and an online personal health record system by US veterans: comparison of Veterans Affairs mental health service users and other veterans nationally , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[14]  Mihail Cocosila,et al.  Perceptions of chronically ill and healthy consumers about electronic personal health records: a comparative empirical investigation , 2014, BMJ Open.

[15]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.

[16]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[18]  Taya Irizarry,et al.  Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[19]  Clemens Scott Kruse,et al.  Patient and Provider Attitudes Toward the Use of Patient Portals for the Management of Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[20]  Deborah Marshall,et al.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[21]  Patient Access to Personal Health Information: Regulation vs. Reality. , 2015, Perspectives in health information management.

[22]  Neil M. Paige,et al.  Electronic Patient Portals: Evidence on Health Outcomes, Satisfaction, Efficiency, and Attitudes , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[23]  Kevin Fiscella,et al.  Barriers and Facilitators of Online Patient Portals to Personal Health Records Among Persons Living With HIV: Formative Research , 2013, JMIR research protocols.

[24]  Sofia Ouhbi,et al.  Free Web-based Personal Health Records: An Analysis of Functionality , 2013, Journal of Medical Systems.

[25]  Nick Sevdalis,et al.  “Nothing About Me Without Me”: An Interpretative Review of Patient Accessible Electronic Health Records , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[26]  Betty Vandenbosch,et al.  Determinants of personal health record use: a large population study at Cleveland Clinic. , 2007, Journal of healthcare information management : JHIM.

[27]  Rachel Hess,et al.  Exploring challenges and potentials of personal health records in diabetes self-management: implementation and initial assessment. , 2007, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[28]  M. P. Fransen,et al.  Applicability of Internationally Available Health Literacy Measures in the Netherlands , 2011, Journal of health communication.

[29]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[30]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  John Hickner,et al.  The value of personal health records for chronic disease management: what do we know? , 2011, Family medicine.

[32]  Claudia Pagliari,et al.  Potential of electronic personal health records , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  E. Keeler,et al.  Costs and benefits of health information technology. , 2006, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[34]  Thomas A. Horan,et al.  Personal health records , 2011, Health Informatics J..

[35]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[36]  David W. Bates,et al.  Organizational strategies for promoting patient and provider uptake of personal health records , 2015, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[37]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[38]  C. Manski The structure of random utility models , 1977 .

[39]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[40]  David A. Hensher,et al.  A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit , 2003 .

[41]  D. Kalra,et al.  A Review of the Empirical Evidence of the Healthcare Benefits of Personal Health Records , 2013, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[42]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[43]  Charles Safran,et al.  Improving personal health records for patient-centered care , 2010, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[44]  Trudy van der Weijden,et al.  Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis , 2013, Patient preference and adherence.

[45]  E. Weber,et al.  A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations , 2006, Judgment and Decision Making.

[46]  David W. Bates,et al.  White Paper: Personal Health Records: Definitions, Benefits, and Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Adoption , 2006, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[47]  Erika L. Abramson,et al.  Consumer attitudes toward personal health records in a beacon community. , 2011, The American journal of managed care.

[48]  Monika Alise Johansen,et al.  The Evolution of Personal Health Records and their Role for Self-Management: A Literature Review , 2014, MIE.

[49]  D. Bates,et al.  Which Users Should Be the Focus of Mobile Personal Health Records? Analysis of User Characteristics Influencing Usage of a Tethered Mobile Personal Health Record , 2016, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[50]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.