Introduction Patient portals are the “front door” to telehealth - online scheduling, video visit links, and digital after visit summaries are often conveyed via the patient portal. Patient portal tools often require similar patient skills and attitudes as telehealth adoption. Analyzing patients’ perceptions and beliefs around this digital patient engagement tool may lead to insights regarding telehealth, particularly in historically underrepresented patient populations. Methods Participants from a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Chicago, IL were surveyed on general technology use, healthcare-specific technology use, and barriers and facilitators to patient portal use. Results The 149 respondents (81% response rate) represented a unique population base with 96% African American, 74% with educational attainment of some college or less, and 48% with at least one chronic medical condition. Technology access and use were high with 78% computer ownership, 98% mobile phone ownership (with 75% smartphone ownership). In terms of patient portal perception, 75% rated Perceived Usefulness (U) as high. Perceived Ease of Use (E) domains similarly had 70% or higher agreement from patients, and potential barriers and facilitators in the Attitudes Toward Use (A) section included a preference to calling their doctor, and minority of patients viewing the portal as unsafe way to communication, too complicated to use, or taking too much time. Additional stratification analysis by demographic variables (age, gender, educational attainment, and number of chronic conditions) revealed differences in portal perception across the Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Attitudes domains. Discussion Insights from barriers, attitudes, and capacity to use patient portal tools deliver important insight into overall adoption of other digital health modalities, including telehealth. In an urban historically underserved patient population, technology access and use is quite high, and mobile phones access was nearly ubiquitous with a large majority using the internet function on their mobile device. Different age groups, genders, levels of educational attainment, or degree of multi-morbidity have different values and needs. Therefore, each subpopulation needs targeted messaging of different portal benefits. Conclusion Our research provides initial insights into patient-level factors influencing patient portal attitudes, with implications toward telehealth adoption. Demographic differences have a significant impact on attitudes toward technology adoption. Equitable uptake of portal and telehealth services will require tailored messaging, training, and multiple modes of communication, including web-based and mobile.
McAlearney AS, Sieck CJ, Gregory ME, Di Tosto G, MacEwan SR, DePuccio MJ, et al. Examining Patients’ Capacity to Use Patient Portals. Medical Care. 2021;59(12):1067–74.
2.
Nouri S, Khoong E, Lyles C, Karliner L. Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv. 2020;(3).
3.
Uscher-Pines L, Sousa J, Jones M, Whaley C, Perrone C, McCullough C, et al. Telehealth Use Among Safety-Net Organizations in California During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA. 2021;325(11):1106.
4.
Sakumoto M.
5.
Schickedanz A, Huang D, Lopez A, Cheung E, Lyles CR, Bodenheimer T, et al. Access, Interest, and Attitudes Toward Electronic Communication for Health Care Among Patients in the Medical Safety Net. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2013;28(7):914–20.
6.
Lafata J, Miller C, Shires D, Dyer K, Ratliff S, Schreiber M. Patients’ adoption of and feature access within electronic patient portals. Am J Manag Care. 2018;(11):352–7.
7.
Patel V, Johnson C. Individuals’ use of online medical records and technology for health needs. 2018;1–17.
8.
Patel V, Barker W, Siminerio E. Disparities in individuals’ access and use of health information technology. 2014;12.
9.
Hayesslh R, Radley D, Mccarthy D. Closing the gap: Past performance of health insurance in reducing racial and ethnic disparities in access to care could be an indication of future results. Commonw Fund. 2015;1–11.
10.
Bliss EB, Meyers DS, Phillips RL, Fryer GE, Dovey SM, Green LA. Variation in participation in health care settings associated with race and ethnicity. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2004;19(9):931–6.
11.
Dickman SL, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S. Inequality and the health-care system in the USA. The Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1431–41.
12.
Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319.
13.
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. 1989;35(8):982–1003.
14.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science. 2000;46(2):186–204.
15.
King WR, He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management. 2006;43(6):740–55.
16.
Lederer AL, Maupin DJ, Sena MP, Zhuang Y. The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems. 2000;29(3):269–82.
17.
Lai VS, Li H. Technology acceptance model for internet banking: an invariance analysis. Information & Management. 2005;42(2):373–86.
18.
Hu PJ, Chau PYK, Sheng ORL, Tam KY. Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems. 1999;16(2):91–112.
19.
Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2010;43(1):159–72.
20.
Portz JD, Bayliss EA, Bull S, Boxer RS, Bekelman DB, Gleason K, et al. Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Explore User Experience, Intent to Use, and Use Behavior of a Patient Portal Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Descriptive Qualitative Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2019;21(4):e11604.
21.
Goel MS, Brown TL, Williams A, Cooper AJ, Hasnain-Wynia R, Baker DW. Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;18(Supplement 1):i8–12.
22.
Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. 2022;
23.
Perrin A. Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2021. 2021;
24.
Singh S, Polavarapu M, Arsene C. Changes in patient portal adoption due to the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic. Informatics for Health and Social Care. 2022;48(2):125–38.
25.
Francke JA, Groden P, Ferrer C, Bienstock D, Tepper DL, Chen TP, et al. Remote enrollment into a telehealth-delivering patient portal: Barriers faced in an urban population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health and Technology. 2021;12(1):227–38.
26.
Wildenbos G, Peute L, Jaspers M. Facilitators and barriers of electronic health record patient portal adoption by older adults: a literature study. Inform Health Connect Citiz-Led Wellness Popul Health. 2017;308–12.
27.
Gulseth MP. Applying Quality Measures and Guidelines in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome and Venous Thromboembolism Introduction. Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy. 2008;14(6 Supp A):2–3.
28.
Bertakis KD. The influence of gender on the doctor–patient interaction. Patient Education and Counseling. 2009;76(3):356–60.
29.
Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY, Adler NE, Nguyen R, Lopez A, et al. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;18(3):318–21.
30.
Jhamb M, Cavanaugh KL, Bian A, Chen G, Ikizler TA, Unruh ML, et al. Disparities in Electronic Health Record Patient Portal Use in Nephrology Clinics. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2015;10(11):2013–22.
31.
Varady NH, d’Amonville S, Chen AF. Electronic Patient Portal Use in Orthopaedic Surgery Is Associated with Disparities, Improved Satisfaction, and Lower No-Show Rates. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2020;102(15):1336–43.
32.
Copyright Ownership: This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, adapt, enhance this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
