title: Consumers' perceptions of patient-accessible electronic medical records.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Electronic health information (eHealth) tools for patients, including patient-accessible electronic medical records (patient portals), are proliferating in health care delivery systems nationally. However, there has been very limited study of the perceived utility and functionality of portals, as well as limited assessment of these systems by vulnerable (low education level, racial/ethnic minority) consumers.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The objective of the study was to identify vulnerable consumers' response to patient portals, their perceived utility and value, as well as their reactions to specific portal functions.
  
  
  METHODS
  This qualitative study used 4 focus groups with 28 low education level, English-speaking consumers in June and July 2010, in New York City.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Participants included 10 males and 18 females, ranging in age from 21-63 years; 19 non-Hispanic black, 7 Hispanic, 1 non-Hispanic White and 1 Other. None of the participants had higher than a high school level education, and 13 had less than a high school education. All participants had experience with computers and 26 used the Internet. Major themes were enhanced consumer engagement/patient empowerment, extending the doctor's visit/enhancing communication with health care providers, literacy and health literacy factors, improved prevention and health maintenance, and privacy and security concerns. Consumers were also asked to comment on a number of key portal features. Consumers were most positive about features that increased convenience, such as making appointments and refilling prescriptions. Consumers raised concerns about a number of potential barriers to usage, such as complex language, complex visual layouts, and poor usability features.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Most consumers were enthusiastic about patient portals and perceived that they had great utility and value. Study findings suggest that for patient portals to be effective for all consumers, portals must be designed to be easy to read, visually engaging, and have user-friendly navigation.
authors: CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, New York, NY, USA. czarcado@hunter.cuny.edu
authors: Christina
authors: C
authors: Zarcadoolas
authors: Wendy L
authors: WL
authors: Vaughon
authors: Sara J
authors: SJ
authors: Czaja
authors: Joslyn
authors: J
authors: Levy
authors: Maxine L
authors: ML
authors: Rockoff
mesh_terms: D022126:Access to Information; D000328:Adult; D001290:Attitude; D003256:Community Participation; D005260:Female; D017144:Focus Groups; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D016347:Medical Records Systems, Computerized; D008875:Middle Aged; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: EMR; electronic medical record; health literacy; patient portal; usability
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Feb;1186:5-23
references: 20201865
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Dec;19(12):1228-39
references: 15610334
references: Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):724-32
references: 22738155
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31888
references: 22363761
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 2002 May-Jun;52(3):134-49
references: 12018928
references: Int J Med Inform. 2002 Nov 12;65(3):169-77
references: 12414016
references: Q J Med. 1969 Apr;38(150):183-94
references: 5781349
references: JMIR Res Protoc. 2013 Jan 22;2(1):e8
references: 23612564
references: Med Care. 2012 May;50(5):434-40
references: 22354209
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Jun;24(6):727-32
references: 19412641
references: J Med Internet Res. 2005 Aug 05;7(4):e47
references: 16236699
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):683-9
references: 19567790
references: Arch Intern Med. 2011 Mar 28;171(6):568-74
references: 21444847
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Apr;23(4):472-5
references: 18373147
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Oct;26(10):1112-6
references: 21538166
references: J Gerontol. 1975 Nov;30(6):668-73
references: 1184925
references: J Med Internet Res. 2005 May 24;7(2):e13
references: 15914460
references: J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 30;14(6):e158
references: 23195925
references: Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979 Feb;18(1):18-22
references: 311507
references: J Health Commun. 2002 Jul-Sep;7(4):309-24
references: 12356289
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Jul;28(7):914-20
references: 23423453
references: Dermatol Clin. 2009 Apr;27(2):133-6, vi
references: 19254656
references: Inform Health Soc Care. 2011 Dec;36(4):233-52
references: 21851182
references: Comput Inform Nurs. 2011 Dec;29(12):714-8; quiz 719-20
references: 21697705
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Nov-Dec;11(6):448-57
references: 15299002
references: Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Feb;20(1):53-61
references: 18024997
references: Public Health Rep. 2007 Nov-Dec;122(6):753-63
references: 18051668
references: J Med Internet Res. 2009 Nov 27;11(4):e48
references: 19945947
references: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Mar;78(3):329-36
references: 20202779
references: J Med Internet Res. 2011 May 26;13(2):e41
references: 21616784
references: J Public Health Policy. 2007;28(1):71-93
references: 17363939
references: Am J Public Health. 2002 Aug;92(8):1278-83
references: 12144984
references: Annu Rev Public Health. 1989;10:163-80
references: 2655629
references: J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 26;15(2):e43
references: 23470453
references: Am J Health Behav. 2007 Sep-Oct;31 Suppl 1:S8-18
references: 17931141
references: Int J Med Inform. 2007 Sep;76(9):633-45
references: 16931133
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 May 1;18(3):318-21
references: 21262921
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Jun;57(6):444-52
references: 12775792
references: J Med Internet Res. 2013 Mar 27;15(3):e65
references: 23535584
references: Psychol Aging. 2006 Jun;21(2):333-52
references: 16768579
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Oct;26(10):1117-23
references: 21647748