Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study

Abstract Objective Online portals provide patients with access to their test results, but it is unknown how patients use these tools to manage results and what information is available to promote understanding. We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore patients’ experiences and preferences when accessing their test results via portals. Materials and Methods We conducted 95 interviews (13 semistructured and 82 structured) with adults who viewed a test result in their portal between April 2015 and September 2016 at 4 large outpatient clinics in Houston, Texas. Semistructured interviews were coded using content analysis and transformed into quantitative data and integrated with the structured interview data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the structured data. Results Nearly two-thirds (63%) did not receive any explanatory information or test result interpretation at the time they received the result, and 46% conducted online searches for further information about their result. Patients who received an abnormal result were more likely to experience negative emotions (56% vs 21%; P = .003) and more likely to call their physician (44% vs 15%; P = .002) compared with those who received normal results. Discussion Study findings suggest that online portals are not currently designed to present test results to patients in a meaningful way. Patients experienced negative emotions often with abnormal results, but sometimes even with normal results. Simply providing access via portals is insufficient; additional strategies are needed to help patients interpret and manage their online test results. Conclusion Given the absence of national guidance, our findings could help strengthen policy and practice in this area and inform innovations that promote patient understanding of test results.

[1]  Susan S. Woods,et al.  Promise of and potential for patient-facing technologies to enable meaningful use. , 2011, American journal of preventive medicine.

[2]  Niels H Chavannes,et al.  Metabolic Effects Associated with ICS in Patients with COPD and Comorbid Type 2 Diabetes: A Historical Matched Cohort Study , 2016, PloS one.

[3]  Nicole L. Exe,et al.  Numeracy and Literacy Independently Predict Patients’ Ability to Identify Out-of-Range Test Results , 2014, Journal of medical Internet research.

[4]  E. Chiauzzi,et al.  Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want? , 2016, Patient preference and adherence.

[5]  Hardeep Singh,et al.  The patient portal and abnormal test results: An exploratory study of patient experiences. , 2015, Patient experience journal.

[6]  Hardeep Singh,et al.  Exploring the Patient Perspective on Access, Interpretation, and Use of Test Results from Patient Portals , 2016, AMIA.

[7]  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher,et al.  Can patients use test results effectively if they have direct access? , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  J. Ferrante,et al.  The Effect of Patient Navigation on Time to Diagnosis, Anxiety, and Satisfaction in Urban Minority Women with Abnormal Mammograms: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2007, Journal of Urban Health.

[9]  N. Elder Laboratory testing in general practice: a patient safety blind spot , 2015, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[10]  J. Hibbard,et al.  Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. , 2004, Health services research.

[11]  Thomas H. Payne,et al.  Patient portals and personal health information online: perception, access, and use by US adults , 2017, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[12]  Simon Hagens,et al.  The Effects of Web-Based Patient Access to Laboratory Results in British Columbia: A Patient Survey on Comprehension and Anxiety , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[13]  Brian Fisher,et al.  How patients use access to their electronic GP record--a quantitative study. , 2011, Family practice.

[14]  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.

[15]  Tom Delbanco,et al.  US experience with doctors and patients sharing clinical notes , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Elizabeth W. Staton,et al.  Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: A report from the ASIPS Collaborative , 2005, BMC family practice.

[17]  Hardeep Singh,et al.  Patient access to medical records and healthcare outcomes: a systematic review , 2014, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[18]  Hardeep Singh,et al.  Should patients get direct access to their laboratory test results? An answer with many questions. , 2011, JAMA.

[19]  A. J. Johnson,et al.  Access to radiologic reports via a patient portal: clinical simulations to investigate patient preferences. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[20]  Dean F Sittig,et al.  A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems , 2010, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[21]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[22]  C. Pyper,et al.  Patients' experiences when accessing their on-line electronic patient records in primary care. , 2004, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[23]  Dean F Sittig,et al.  Patient portals and health apps: Pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other , 2016, Healthcare.

[24]  Suzanne Paone,et al.  Direct Release of Test Results to Patients Increases Patient Engagement and Utilization of Care , 2016, PloS one.

[25]  Jacob Solomon,et al.  Graphics help patients distinguish between urgent and non-urgent deviations in laboratory test results , 2016, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[26]  N. Elder,et al.  "But what does it mean for me?" Primary care patients' communication preferences for test results notification. , 2012, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[27]  Jessica S. Ancker,et al.  Expanding access to high-quality plain-language patient education information through context-specific hyperlinks , 2016, AMIA.