↓ Skip to main content

Too Many Don’ts and Not Enough Do’s? A Survey of Hospitals About Their Portal Instructions for Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Too Many Don’ts and Not Enough Do’s? A Survey of Hospitals About Their Portal Instructions for Patients
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2019
DOI 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joy L. Lee, Claire E. Williams, Sean Baird, Marianne S. Matthias, Michael Weiner

Abstract

Patient portals present the opportunity to expand patients' access to their clinicians and health information. Yet patients and clinicians have expressed the need for more guidance on portal and secure messaging procedures to avoid misuse. Little information is currently available concerning whether and how expectations of portal and messaging usage are communicated to patients. To identify the information made available to patients about patient portal use, and to assess ease in accessing such information. A national survey of publicly available portal information from hospital websites. The study team followed up with phone calls to each hospital to request any additional patient-directed materials (e.g., pamphlets) not located in the web search. A random sample of 200 acute-care hospitals, 50 from each of four US Census regions, selected from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Hospital Compare dataset. Availability of patient portals, secure messaging, and related functionality; the content and ease of access to patient-directed information about portals. Of the hospitals sampled, 177 (89%) had a patient portal; 116 (66%) of these included secure messaging functionality. Most portals with secure messaging (N = 65, 58%) did not describe appropriate patient messaging conduct. Although many included disclaimers that the service is not for emergencies, 23 hospitals only included this within the fine prints of their "Terms and Conditions" section. Content analysis of additional patient-directed materials revealed a focus on logistical content, features of the portals, and parameters of use. Of the three categories, logistical content (e.g., creating an account) was the most thorough. Although most of the sampled hospitals had patient portals, many fail to educate patients fully and set expectations for secure messaging. To improve patient engagement and minimize harm, hospitals and clinicians need to provide more information and set clearer guidelines for patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Engineering 4 13%
Psychology 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2020.
All research outputs
#520,611
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#427
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,937
of 362,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#14
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.