Published on in Vol 23, No 5 (2021): May

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/22549, first published .
Patient Portal Use, Perceptions of Electronic Health Record Value, and Self-Rated Primary Care Quality Among Older Adults: Cross-sectional Survey

Patient Portal Use, Perceptions of Electronic Health Record Value, and Self-Rated Primary Care Quality Among Older Adults: Cross-sectional Survey

Patient Portal Use, Perceptions of Electronic Health Record Value, and Self-Rated Primary Care Quality Among Older Adults: Cross-sectional Survey

Authors of this article:

Dori A Cross 1 Author Orcid Image ;   Zachary Levin 1 Author Orcid Image ;   Minakshi Raj 2 Author Orcid Image

Original Paper

1Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, United States

2Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States

Corresponding Author:

Dori A Cross, PhD

Division of Health Policy and Management

University of Minnesota School of Public Health

420 Delaware Ave SE

MMC 729

Minneapolis, MN, 55455

United States

Phone: 1 612 301 2570

Email: dcross@umn.edu


Background: Older adults are increasingly accessing information and communicating using patient-facing portals available through their providers’ electronic health record (EHR). Most theories of technology acceptance and use suggest that patients’ overall satisfaction with care should be independent of their chosen level of portal engagement. However, achieving expected benefits of portal use depends on demonstrated support from providers to meet these expectations. This is especially true among older adults, who may require more guidance. However, little is known about whether misalignment of expectations around technology-facilitated care is associated with lower perceptions of care quality.

Objective: The aims of this study were to analyze whether older adults’ assessment of primary care quality differs across levels of patient portal engagement and whether perceptions of how well their provider uses the EHR to support care moderates this relationship.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey analysis of 158 older adults over the age of 65 (average age 71.4 years) across Michigan using a 13-measure composite of self-assessed health care quality. Portal use was categorized as none, moderate (use of 1-3 functionalities), or extensive (use of 4-7 functionalities). EHR value perception was measured by asking respondents how they felt their doctor’s EHR use improved the patient–provider relationship.

Results: Moderate portal users, compared to those who were extensive users, had lower estimated care quality (–0.214 on 4-point scale; P=.03). Differences between extensive portal users and nonportal users were not significant. Quality perception was only particularly low among moderate portal users with low EHR value perception; those with high EHR value perception rated quality similarly to other portal user groups.

Conclusions: Older adults who are moderate portal users are the least satisfied with their care, and the most sensitive to perceptions of how well their provider uses the EHR to support the relationship. Encouraging portal use without compromising perceptions of quality requires thinking beyond patient-focused education. Achieving value from use of patient-facing technologies with older adults is contingent upon matched organizational investments that support technology-enabled care delivery. Providers and staff need policies and practices that demonstrate technology adeptness. Older adults may need more tailored signaling and accommodation for technology to be maximally impactful.

J Med Internet Res 2021;23(5):e22549

doi:10.2196/22549

Keywords



Patients’ increased access to, and engagement with, their digitized health information has featured prominently in recent federal law and quality-based payment programs designed to accelerate value-generating use of health information technology [1,2]. The Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (HER) Incentive Programs have helped to advance use of patient portal technologies as a mechanism for information access and electronic patient–provider communication. Portals are intended to increase patient engagement in managing their own health and health care needs, and improve accessibility and efficiency of receiving certain clinical advice, reminders, and services [3-5]. However, evidence linking portal use to improved measures of quality or value is mixed [6-9]. This uncertainty regarding the value of portal use is especially true for older adults, a population for which there has been substantial attention concerning lag in adoption [10] and less understanding of variation in patterns of portal use and perceptions of information technology–enabled care [11-14]. More recent evidence suggests some narrowing of the digital divide based on age [12,15] and significant potential for enhanced communication and self-management engaging older adults through portal technologies [13,16,17]. However, the “right” level of portal use to encourage among older adults is difficult to pinpoint and context dependent.

Patients, provided that they are offered portal access in the first place [15], make usage choices based on technology expectations (eg, perceived usefulness and ease of use) and enabling factors, such as the level of support, encouragement, and education received from providers on how to engage with the portal [18-20]. Together, enabling factors and expectations shape intention and actual portal use, as articulated by the technology acceptance model and the more updated Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [21,22] (see Figure 1). However, the linkage between level of portal use and patients’ overall satisfaction with care is ill defined.

Figure 1. Integrated conceptual model of portal use and perception of care quality modified by expectation confirmation.
View this figure

Empirically, there appears to be little association between how much a portal is used (ie, a dose response) and objective measures of quality (eg, hemoglobin A1c control, readmissions) [23,24]. A key theoretical consideration is that portals are a shared tool between patients and providers. A patient’s perception of benefit from using the portal is reevaluated with every experience the user has in using the portal to facilitate communication and needed services with a health care provider. Whether a patient is happy with care at their chosen level of portal engagement is therefore dependent on whether the experience matches their expectation [25,26]. Extending the technology acceptance model with expectation–confirmation theory (see Figure 1) reflects this more interactive understanding [27]. (Dis)confirmation of patient expectations around the use of portals, shaped by how the provider organization is engaging from their end, may modify the relationship between chosen levels of engagement and patients’ self-assessment of care quality.

Among older adults, the extent to which their level of portal engagement is matched by perceived reciprocal investment by their provider is a heightened contextual factor that may influence how older adults assess their quality of care. Older adults’ expectations for how their primary care providers can structure and deliver health care in a more technology-advanced way continue to evolve, and their perceptions of this alignment in investment is heightened given the additional guidance and support that older adults more often need in order to feel comfortable in engaging with patient-facing technologies [28,29]. Observations about how the provider uses the EHR in-clinic—perceived adeptness of use, continuity or disruption of attention and communication, and whether providers voice frustration with use—meaningfully shape whether patients perceive that their provider’s use of technology adds value to, or detracts from, the value of their care [30-32]. To the extent that older adults’ value assessments around portal engagement may be tied to perceptions of how effectively their providers use the EHR, we must consider these as possibly interdependent factors that shape overall assessment of care quality [29,31,33].

This study used a novel dataset of older adults surveyed about their health needs, provider relationships, and perceptions of health system experiences. We characterized the nature of portal engagement among a sample of older adults and then addressed the following 2 specific research questions: (1) Are older adults’ assessments of primary care quality independent of the level of personal engagement with patient portal technologies? (2) To what extent do patient perceptions of how their provider uses technology modify observed relationships between extent of patient portal use and assessment of care quality? Ultimately, this paper seeks to provide actionable insights that help providers leverage health information technology investment for improved experiences of primary care for a large and growing older adult population.


Setting and Data Source

A statewide survey regarding older adults’ perceptions of health care needs and navigation of primary care services was developed and administered between March 2019 and June 2019 across Michigan, which has population demographics that closely represent nationwide aging trends [34]. The survey instrument was informed by 4 focus groups with a total of 18 older adult participants, and drew upon elements of previously validated surveys, including the clinician/group survey of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and the National Poll on Healthy Aging [35,36]. “Think aloud” cognitive testing was then conducted with an additional 10 participants for survey refinement to ensure functionality, appropriate wording, and comprehension [37,38]. We used this adaptive measure development approach because many validated measures of primary care quality are general to the adult population; this broader survey effort sought to define quality from the specific perspective of aging. [39] This survey study was reviewed and determined to be exempt from full human subjects review by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board. The full survey instrument is available upon request.

Participants were recruited statewide using an online health research platform managed by a large academic medical center with a pool of roughly 50,000 prospective participants [40]. Respondents needed to be over 65 years of age, comfortable with written English, have a person whom they consider their “regular doctor”, and have passed a brief cognitive test. All respondents must have received health care in the United States at least once in the past year but not necessarily with their regular doctor. Because we used a convenience sampling approach, we collected a number of demographic and health status indicators to help characterize our final sample and appropriately limit the generalizability of our findings [14,16]. Participants received a brief overview of the study and the URL for accessing the survey via Qualtrics where they also provided written informed consent. Respondents were asked to reflect specifically on health care experiences with the person they consider their primary care provider. Survey sections containing the questions of interest for our analyses were distanced from each other within the instrument, and question order within each section was randomized across participants [41]. Participants received US $10 for participation.

Measures

Outcomes

Our primary outcome was a composite measure of participants’ overall self-rated health care quality. The survey contained 13 questions that assessed dimensions of quality. Four of these questions were adopted from the CAHPS patient survey [36]; 9 additional questions assessing care coordination, patient-centered care experience, and age-sensitive care delivery were added based on focus group findings to reflect the particular experiences of older adults (Multimedia Appendix 1). All questions were assessed on the same 1-4 scale (“not true,” “somewhat true,” “fairly true,” or “very true”) as preferred by respondents during cognitive testing and reverse coded as necessary. We averaged the values provided across all 13 questions to assign each respondent a summary value between 1 and 4. The Cronbach α reliability coefficient was .94, and exploratory factor analysis supported use of a single factor, with all questions loading on to this factor at or above 0.68 (Multimedia Appendix 2).

Technology Perception and Use

We used 2 health information technology–related survey questions. One measure captured how respondents use health information technology via available patient portal features. We asked about usage of 7 features across 3 domains: information availability (viewing laboratory/test results, reviewing physician’s advice, finding medications), communication (messaging with provider, answering previsit questions), and convenience (refilling medications, paying bills online). These questions were adapted from the National Poll on Healthy Aging [35]. We then created 3 categories of portal use: no portal use, moderate portal use (1-3 features used), and extensive portal use (4-7 features used).

The second question focused on perception of provider’s use of EHRs. We asked respondents, on a 1-4 scale, if they felt their doctor’s EHR use improved their patient–provider relationship. We focused on improved relationship as a measure of EHR use given our interest in the value of EHR for communication and patient engagement. We created a binary indicator for EHR value perception; participants who reported a 1 or 2 (“not true” or “somewhat true”) were labeled as having a low EHR value perception and those who reported a 3 or 4 (“fairly true” or “very true”) were labeled as having a high EHR value perception.

Covariates

The following self-reported demographic and clinical profile characteristics were available from survey data: age, race, sex, highest education completed, and an indicator of financial status (how often respondent has money left over at the end of the month). Clinical profile measures included the patient’s self-reported health status (poor or fair, good, and very good or excellent), an indicator of polypharmacy (ie, whether a participant self-reports taking 4 or more pills) [42], number of primary care and number of total health care encounters in the past 6 months, and whether the participant has a caregiver. We also asked respondents the duration of their relationship with their doctor (<5 years, 5-10 year, 10+ years).

Check for Common Method Bias

Because our main variables of interest (ie, information technology perception/use questions) and our composite quality outcome measure derived from the same survey instrument, we tested for common method bias prior to conducting any analyses [41]. Factor analysis on the combination of all included measures confirmed that there was no single latent factor accounting for most of the covariance among survey questions.

Analytic Methods

We first calculated summary statistics for all available demographic and clinical profile characteristics of our survey respondents, and, where possible, considered comparative national statistics to understand how well our sample compared to the demographic profile of older adults across the United States. We also calculated summary statistics for our outcome measure: the 13-item composite of self-reported health care quality.

For our information technology–specific questions, we calculated the percent of respondents using each of the 7 available portal features. To understand the distinguishing characteristics of respondents at each level of portal use (eg, nonportal users, moderate portal users, extensive portal users), we assessed bivariate relationships between portal use and all available demographic and health status measures (listed above as covariates). We also tested the association between our portal use categories and the EHR value perception measure (ie, how respondents perceive value in their provider’s use of the EHR). Because health status and health care needs may influence the specific portal features considered useful to an individual, we also ran a supplemental analysis to look at whether the types of portal use (ie, which features) varied based on self-rated health status and/or extent of medication use.

We next examined the bivariate relationships between all available respondent characteristics and the composite quality measure to assess which characteristics are relevant to include in our full models. We estimated full multivariate ordinary least squares regression models with robust SEs. Examining the distribution of errors postestimation supported this model choice. We first estimated the independent adjusted effects of the extent of respondent portal use and the EHR value perception on the composite quality outcome measure. We then reran these models and included an interaction between these variables to assess whether EHR value perception moderates the association between respondents’ personal portal use and self-reported health care quality.


Summary of Data

Our survey yielded 167 responses from adults over the age of 65, with 158 surveys sufficiently complete for full analysis. The average age of respondents in our sample was 71.4 years. Respondents were 66.5% (105/158) female, highly educated (45.2% [71/157] reporting higher than a bachelor’s degree), and in good health (57.6% [91/158] reporting very good or excellent health status; Table 1). These characteristics, in addition to a younger-skewed age distribution and underrepresentation of rural respondents, differentiate our sample relative to national corresponding statistics. About one-third of participants (46/153, 30.1%) had a formal or informal caregiver who supported their health and health care needs, and 17.9% (28/158) expressed concern with technology use. Individuals varied in clinical complexity (54/157 [34.3%] taking 4 or more pills daily) and financial security (53/158 [33.5%] reporting money rarely or sometimes left over at the end of the month). Over half (88/158, 55.7%) of the respondents had been seeing their doctor for at least 5 years.

Our 13-item composite outcome measure of perceived health care quality averaged 3.46 out of 4 across our sample (SD 0.46). Of the 158 respondents, 30 (19.0%) reported uniformly high quality on all 13 questions.

Portal use among this sample was relatively high. Portal use was found to be positively associated with the number of doctors a patient had seen in a 6-month time frame and negatively associated with age, technology concerns, and financial stability (Multimedia Appendix 3). Most health status characteristics (eg, self-reported health status, polypharmacy, having a caregiver) were not associated with extent of portal use. Of all respondents (N=164 with portal use data), 127 (77.4%) used at least 1 of 7 available functionalities (Figure 2). The most commonly used features were viewing test/laboratory results (72.6%, 119/164) and communicating with the doctor (56.1%, 92/164). The average respondent used 3 different functions; 22.6% (37/164) of the sample reported no portal use, 30.4% (50/164) used 1-3 features (moderate), and 47.0% (77/164) of the sample used 4 or more features (extensive). We found that individuals taking more medications were more likely to use the portal to find their medication list but less likely to use the portal for answering previsit questions. We observed no significant differences by self-reported health status (Multimedia Appendix 4).

Overall, 67 respondents (41.5%) reported that the EHR improved their relationship with their physician (high EHR value perception; Figure 3). This percentage was greatest among extensive portal users (42/76, 55%). Respondents who were nonusers and moderate portal users were significantly less likely to have high EHR value perception (nonusers: 9/34, 26%; moderate users: 16/49, 33%; chi-square P value=.01).

Table 1. Respondents’ sample characteristics.
CharacteristicSurvey sample (N=158), n (%)Corresponding national statistics (%)
Demographics

Age (years)a


65-6983 (52.5%)32.6%


70-7435 (22.2%)25.6%


75-7924 (15.2%)17.7%


80+16 (10.1%)24.2%

Femalea105 (66.5%)55.5%

Nonmetropolitan countyb9 (5.7%)14.1%

Highest education attainedc


Bachelor\'s degree41 (26.1%)70.8%


Bachelor\'s degree45 (28.7%)16.5%


> Bachelor\'s degree71 (45.2%)12.7%

Has money left over at the end of the month (always/often)d105 (66.5%)66.7%

Concerns with technology use28 (17.9%)e
Health status

Self-reported health statusf


Fair/poor29 (18.4%)23.0%


Good38 (24.1%)33.1%


Very good/excellent91 (57.6%)43.9%

Percent of patients taking 4+ pills dailyg (n=157)54 (34.3%)54%

Has a caregiver (n=153)46 (30.1%)

Patient–provider relationship


Seeing personal doctor for 5+ years88 (55.7%)

aNational statistics from the US Census Bureau, Population Division (2019) [43].

bNational statistics from the US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2019) [44].

cNational statistics from the US Census Bureau (2018) [45].

dNational statistics from the National Council on Aging (2015) [46].

eComparable national statistics could not be found.

fNational statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) [47].

gNational statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation (2019) [48].

Figure 2. Use of available portal functions among respondents.
View this figure
Figure 3. Comparison of EHR value perception by portal use category. EHR: electronic health record.
View this figure
Regression Results

Bivariate analyses that tested association of each patient-level covariate and the composite quality outcome measure revealed only 3 significant associations: respondents’ length of relationship with their provider, self-reported health, and whether the respondent had money leftover at the end of the month. The multivariate models presented include only these controls. Models with all available covariates included had consistent findings; because of our sample size, we present the more parsimonious model.

Column 1 of Table 2 presents our noninteracted multivariate model. Relative to extensive portal users, moderate portal use was significantly associated with lower self-rated quality (–0.214 on 4-point composite scale; P=.03). Adjusted differences between extensive portal users and nonportal users were not significant. Estimates of self-reported quality were also significantly higher for individuals with high EHR value perception relative to low perception (0.288; P.001). Among control variables, higher quality was associated with individuals having a longer (10+ years) relationship duration with their provider and with being in very good or excellent health. Effects of financial stability were not significant.

When we interacted EHR value perception with respondent portal use (column 2 of Table 2), we still observed high EHR value perception to be positively and significantly associated with self-rated quality, and that there were significant differences in quality only between extensive and moderate portal users (not between extensive and nonportal users). The interaction terms were not statistically significant, suggesting that these significant differences in self-rated quality by portal use category are more salient among those with low EHR value perception. Figure 4 visually demonstrates the effect of EHR value perception on the relationship between portal use and self-rated quality. In the noninteracted model (ie “independent effects”), the effect of EHR value perception remained consistent across all levels of portal use. The interacted model demonstrates differential effects where moderate portal users appear particularly sensitive to EHR value perception. Among this group, those with low EHR value perception had especially low predicted estimates of perceived quality, while those with high EHR value perception reported a more similar self-rated quality to those who were extensive portal users.

Table 2. Multivariate ordinary least squares regression results: adjusted estimated effects on overall patient self-rated quality (N=158).a
Estimated effects on self-rated qualityModel without interaction, coefficient (SE)P valueModel with interaction, coefficient (SE)P value
Portal use category (reference: extensive portal use)

No portal use–0.081 (0.104).434–0.041 (0.121).73

Moderate portal use–0.214 (0.095).027–0.288 (0.131).03
High EHRb value perception (reference: low EHR value perception)0.288 (0.074).0010.257 (0.086).004
Portal use x EHR value perception (reference: high EHR value perception x extensive portal use)

High EHR value perception x no portal useN/AcN/A–0.181 (0.228).44

High EHR value perception x moderate portal useN/AN/A0.221 (0.181).23
Length of relationship with primary care physician (reference: 5 years)

5-10 years0.176 (0.097).0710.173 (0.097).08

10+ years0.350 (0.086).0010.339 (0.086).001
Self-reported health (reference: very good/excellent)

Poor/fair–0.246 (0.119).041–0.221 (0.123).08

Good–0.216 (0.092).034–0.196 (0.092).06
Money left over at the end of the month always/often (reference: rarely/sometimes)0.080 (0.099).4220.091 (0.099).36
Constant3.19 (0.163).0013.40 (0.151).001
R20.274N/A0.288N/A

aOutcome (self-rated quality) on a 4-point scale.

bEHR: electronic health record.

cN/A: not applicable.

Figure 4. Adjusted estimates of self-rated quality by EHR value perception and portal use. EHR: electronic health record.
View this figure

Principal Findings

Using novel statewide survey data of older adults’ health care needs and preferences, we found that moderate portal users, those who use just a few available features, had the lowest self-rated quality, lower than both extensive portal users and nonportal users. Among this group, it was particularly those individuals also with low EHR value perception who had the lowest estimates of self-rated quality. Those with high EHR value perception had estimated quality levels similar to those of extensive portal users. These analyses preliminarily support an expectancy confirmation theory extension to patient technology acceptance. Our findings are a first step toward understanding how a mismatch between older adults’ chosen level of engagement in technology-enabled care and perceptions of how well their provider uses technology to deliver services may drive variation in how older adults assess overall quality of their primary care.

Our results reveal an important emerging dual consideration with older adults. The number of older adults who are interested in and capable of participating in technology-supported health care is growing especially as it enables them to age in place [49,50]. Even those with some trepidation are starting to engage with these tools, and thoughtful support of this experience is increasingly a key component of how they perceive their care experience. These considerations now exist alongside longstanding concerns for a significant number of older adults who still have very salient individual and structural barriers to engagement (to the point that they are not even meaningfully captured via a primarily online survey like what has been presented in this study). Both issues merit attention and investments in improvement.

Fostering higher and more equitable rates of portal engagement with older adults requires offering portal access more equitably [15] and coaching patients (and their family members) through the features while being more explicit about shared expectations and the “rules of engagement” regarding portal use [13,20]. Encouraging patient portal use without compromising perceptions of quality, however, also requires that clinics demonstrate that they are competent, proactive users of technology. This means, first, that providers and staff must convey their own commitment to using the portal as a communication tool, including more robust provider or staff training and explicit policies around responsiveness and follow-up [20,29]. Enabling and sustaining this commitment requires health care organizations to support providers in these efforts, for example, by building time for portal encounters into scheduling and productivity considerations, and using EHR features such as shared task queues to facilitate delegation of communications that do not require physician response [51].

Our results also underscore the importance of opinions that patients form regarding providers’ adeptness at using the EHR during in-person care. These opinions—in particular for those patients who are engaging with the portal but are not quite super users—are strongly associated with perceptions of care quality. Significant EHR usability challenges and documentation burden have persisted as being reasons for why providers are frustrated with using their systems [52,53]. However, patients’ unmet expectations may increasingly become a consequence to providers’ obvious frustration and disengagement with the EHR. Primary care settings need implementable strategies to convey to patients the ways that technology is being leveraged to support their care, for example, by training and evaluating providers and staff on participative communication strategies that use screen sharing or integration of EHR task completion with patient engagement [31,54]. This may be especially necessary for providers caring for those with mistrust of the health care system and/or those with limited English proficiency or other communication or health literacy barriers, who may benefit from engaging with technology but may be wary of providers’ capacity to deliver high value care through the EHR. Policy efforts are also needed to encourage vendors to improve usability and development of features that meaningfully support the most cognitively challenging and time-intensive tasks in primary care [55]. Ongoing federal initiatives that focus on enabling use of third-party applications for self-management and patient-generated health data (ie, tools untethered to the EHR) need to also be accompanied by guidelines and support for integrating these tools in to practice.

Future Work

As older adults’ options for technology-assisted health and health care continue to grow, shared expectations are increasingly important for how use of these tools will be supported and matched by adept technology use among providers. Future research should emphasize the salient contextual factors that influence technology use and technology perceptions particularly relevant to older adults’ health care utilization. For example, older adults are likely to receive support from family or informal caregivers, and caregivers’ perception of provider quality may influence their older relatives’ perception of quality. Future research should consider how the informal caregivers’ role could be best accommodated and facilitated in the presence of EHR-supported care delivery [56,57]. Simultaneously, providers and organizations should be considerate of the potential for additional burdens on caregivers to foster their older relative’s engagement with technology. Organizational changes required to meet these identified needs are not insignificant, but can build the essential capacity for patient-centered, value-based care.

Limitations

This study has two key limitations. First, this survey is a cross-sectional analysis and we cannot make any causal claims about the impact of patient or provider use of technology on older adults’ assessment of care quality. Our research approach is descriptive and not designed to address the endogeneity of portal use with respect to health needs and the nature of recent health encounters. Second, the study uses a convenience sample and diverges on some key characteristics (ie, age distribution, educational achievement, rurality) relative to nationwide statistics. The sample also comprised mostly community-dwelling older adults and was primarily accessed online, excluding those older adults living in nursing home facilities, those with severe illnesses, and those with significant technology barriers. Our findings are thus not broadly generalizable, particularly for more clinically and socially complex older adult populations, but do provide important insights for the growing number of older adults who are interested and capable of participating in technology-supported health care.

Conclusions

Despite significant barriers for many (ie, connectivity and individual comfort with technology), certain populations of older adults are using patient portals and updating their expectations about technology-enabled health care delivery at growing rates. This 2019 statewide survey is evidence for widespread but highly variable portal use. Older adults who are moderate portal users are the least satisfied with their care and the most sensitive to perceptions of how well their provider uses the EHR to support care. This offers preliminary evidence to inform an understanding of the link between patient technology use and perceptions of care quality, moderated by expectancy confirmation. Patients’ satisfaction with care at different chosen levels of portal use depends on whether providers offer an experience that aligns with their expectations. Encouraging older adults in more nascent use of patient portals may negatively affect perceptions of care quality if providers are not demonstrating adeptness with their own technology use during in-person visits and for asynchronous interaction. Organizationally, clinics need to consider changes to technology-enabled care—such as better access for, and integration of, caregivers—that are sensitive to, and accommodating of, the evolving needs and expectations of older adults. Ultimately, regulatory and payer policy changes are necessary to address the root causes of provider’s frustration and disengagement with technology-supported care practices, especially poor EHR usability and lack of support for integration and efficient use of portals or other remote technologies.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the study respondents for taking the time to participate, and thank Katie Larin for her contributions to this manuscript. The authors also acknowledge the University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan for their support of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Survey questions for developing the quality composite measure.

DOCX File , 21 KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

Exploratory factor analysis.

DOCX File , 13 KB

Multimedia Appendix 3

Characteristics associated with portal use.

DOCX File , 17 KB

Multimedia Appendix 4

Variation in portal use, by number of medications taken and by self-reported health status.

DOCX File , 94 KB

  1. Lye C, Forman H, Daniel J, Krumholz H. The 21st Century Cures Act and electronic health records one year later: will patients see the benefits? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018 Sep 01;25(9):1218-1220. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Quality payment program: promoting interoperability measures requirements. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.   URL: https://qpp.cms.gov/mips/promoting-interoperability [accessed 2021-03-14]
  3. Ricciardi L, Mostashari F, Murphy J, Daniel JG, Siminerio EP. A national action plan to support consumer engagement via e-health. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013 Feb;32(2):376-384. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. What is a patient portal? Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. 2020.   URL: https://www.healthit.gov/faq/what-patient-portal [accessed 2020-06-01]
  5. Ford EW, Hesse BW, Huerta TR. Personal health record use in the United States: forecasting future adoption levels. J Med Internet Res 2016 Mar 30;18(3):e73 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Goldzweig CL, Orshansky G, Paige NM, Towfigh AA, Haggstrom DA, Miake-Lye I, et al. Electronic patient portals: evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency, and attitudes: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013 Nov 19;159(10):677-687. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2015 Feb 10;17(2):e44 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Tenforde M, Jain A, Hickner J. The value of personal health records for chronic disease management: what do we know? Fam Med 2011 May;43(5):351-354 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  9. Han H, Gleason KT, Sun C, Miller HN, Kang SJ, Chow S, et al. Using patient portals to improve patient outcomes: systematic review. JMIR Hum Factors 2019 Dec 19;6(4):e15038 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Peacock S, Reddy A, Leveille S, Walker J, Payne TH, Oster NV, et al. Patient portals and personal health information online: perception, access, and use by US adults. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017 Apr 01;24(e1):e173-e177 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Sakaguchi-Tang DK, Bosold AL, Choi YK, Turner AM. Patient portal use and experience among older adults: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform 2017 Oct 16;5(4):e38 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Nahm E, Zhu S, Bellantoni M, Keldsen L, Charters K, Russomanno V, et al. Patient portal use among older adults: what is really happening nationwide? J Appl Gerontol 2020 Apr;39(4):442-450 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. 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. J Med Internet Res 2019 Apr 08;21(4):e11604 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Cajita MI, Nilsen ML, Irizarry T, Callan JA, Beach SR, Swartwout E, et al. Predictors of patient portal use among community-dwelling older adults. Res Gerontol Nurs 2021 Jan 01;14(1):33-42. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Anthony DL, Campos-Castillo C, Lim PS. Who isn't using patient portals and why? Evidence and implications from a national sample of US adults. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 Dec;37(12):1948-1954. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Irizarry T, Shoemake J, Nilsen ML, Czaja S, Beach S, DeVito Dabbs A. Patient portals as a tool for health care engagement: a mixed-method study of older adults with varying levels of health literacy and prior patient portal use. J Med Internet Res 2017 Mar 30;19(3):e99 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Wildenbos GA, Maasri K, Jaspers M, Peute L. Older adults using a patient portal: registration and experiences, one year after implementation. Digit Health 2018;4:2055207618797883 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2015 Feb 20;17(2):e40 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Irizarry T, DeVito Dabbs A, Curran CR. Patient portals and patient engagement: a state of the science review. J Med Internet Res 2015 Jun 23;17(6):e148 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Sieck CJ, Hefner JL, Schnierle J, Florian H, Agarwal A, Rundell K, et al. The rules of engagement: perspectives on secure messaging from experienced ambulatory patient portal users. JMIR Med Inform 2017 Jul 04;5(3):e13 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Bagozzi RP, Davis FD, Warshaw PR. Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations 2016 Apr 22;45(7):659-686. [CrossRef]
  22. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003;27(3):425. [CrossRef]
  23. Griffin A, Skinner A, Thornhill J, Weinberger M. Patient portals. Appl Clin Inform 2017 Dec 16;07(02):489-501. [CrossRef]
  24. Tenforde M, Nowacki A, Jain A, Hickner J. The association between personal health record use and diabetes quality measures. J Gen Intern Med 2012 Apr;27(4):420-424 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Price-Haywood E, Luo Q, Monlezun D. Dose effect of patient-care team communication via secure portal messaging on glucose and blood pressure control. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018 Jun 01;25(6):702-708 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Parasuraman A, Berry L, Zeithaml V. Understanding customer expectations of service. Sloan Manage Rev 1991;32(3):39-48.
  27. Bhattacherjee A. Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly 2001 Sep;25(3):351. [CrossRef]
  28. Graetz I, Gordon N, Fung V, Hamity C, Reed M. The digital divide and patient portals. Medical care 2016;54(8):772-779. [CrossRef]
  29. Kim S, Fadem S. Communication matters: Exploring older adults' current use of patient portals. Int J Med Inform 2018 Dec;120:126-136. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Alkureishi MA, Lee WW, Lyons M, Press VG, Imam S, Nkansah-Amankra A, et al. Impact of electronic medical record use on the patient-doctor relationship and communication: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2016 May;31(5):548-560 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Crampton N, Reis S, Shachak A. Computers in the clinical encounter: a scoping review and thematic analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 May;23(3):654-665 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Lelievre S, Schultz K. Does computer use in patient-physician encounters influence patient satisfaction? Can Fam Physician 2010 Jan;56(1):e6-12 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  33. Qiao Y, Asan O, Montague E. Factors associated with patient trust in electronic health records used in primary care settings. Health Policy and Technology 2015 Dec;4(4):357-363. [CrossRef]
  34. QuickFacts: M. US Census Bureau. US Census Bureau. 2017.   URL: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 [accessed 2020-06-01]
  35. Clark S, Singer D, Solway E, Kirch M, Malani P. Logging in: using patient portals to access health information. National Poll on Healthy Aging, University of Michigan. 2018.   URL: https://www.healthyagingpoll.org/report/logging-using-patient-portals-access-health-information [accessed 2021-03-14]
  36. CAHPS patient experience surveys and guidance. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2019.   URL: https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/index.html [accessed 2020-06-10]
  37. Beatty PC, Willis GB. Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly 2007 Jun 05;71(2):287-311. [CrossRef]
  38. Daugherty S, Harris-Kojetin L, Squire C, Jaël E, Harris-Kojetin L. Maximizing the quality of cognitive interviewing data: an exploration of three approaches and their informational contributions. 2001 Presented at: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association; 2001 August 5-9; American Statistical Association.
  39. Raj M. Meeting the Geriatric Care Needs of an Aging Population: Older Adult, Family Caregiver, and Provider Perspectives. In: Meeting the Geriatric Care Needs of an Aging Population: Older Adult, Family Caregiver, and Provider Perspectives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 2020.
  40. Health Research Recruitment Platform. University of Michigan Health System. Health research. 2020.   URL: UMHealthResearch.org [accessed 2019-01-01]
  41. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey GE. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr 2017 Oct 10;17(1):230 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Annual estimates of the resident population for selected age groups by sex for the United States. US Census Bureau, Population Division. 2019.   URL: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2020/population-estimates-detailed.html [accessed 2021-04-01]
  44. Pender J, Hertz T T, Cromartie J, Farrigan T. Rural America at a glance, 2019 edition. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2019.   URL: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=95340 [accessed 2021-04-01]
  45. US Census Bureau. Current population survey table creator.   URL: https://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.html [accessed 2021-04-01]
  46. Get the facts on economic security for seniors. National council on aging.   URL: https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-on-economic-security-for-seniors [accessed 2021-04-01]
  47. Behavioral risk factor surveillance system web-enabled analysts tool. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.   URL: https://nccd.cdc.gov/weat/#/analysis [accessed 2021-04-01]
  48. Kirzinger A, Neuman T, Cubanski J, Brodie M. Data note: prescription drugs and older adults. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2019.   URL: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/data-note-prescription-drugs-and-older-adults [accessed 2021-04-01]
  49. Andrews J, Brown L, Hawley M, Astell A. Older adults' perspectives on using digital technology to maintain good mental health: interactive group study. JMIR 2019;21(2):1-11. [CrossRef]
  50. Wang J. Mobile and connected health technologies for older adults aging in place. J Gerontol Nurs 2018 Jun 01;44(6):3-5. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Cross D. Contextual factors affecting the implementation of team-based primary care: a scoping review. In: Managing Improvement in Healthcare. NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018:77-98.
  52. Mishra P, Kiang JC, Grant RW. Association of medical scribes in primary care with physician workflow and patient experience. JAMA Intern Med 2018 Nov 01;178(11):1467-1472 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Committee on Systems Approaches to Improve Patient Care by Supporting Clinician Well-Being. National Academy of Medicine. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press; 2019.
  54. Street RL, Liu L, Farber NJ, Chen Y, Calvitti A, Weibel N, et al. Keystrokes, mouse clicks, and gazing at the computer: how physician interaction with the EHR affects patient participation. J Gen Intern Med 2018 Apr;33(4):423-428 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Adler-Milstein J. Electronic health record time among outpatient physicians: reflections on the who, what, and why. Ann Intern Med 2020 Jan 14;172(3):212-213. [CrossRef]
  56. Wolff JL, Spillman B. Older adults receiving assistance with physician visits and prescribed medications and their family caregivers: prevalence, characteristics, and hours of care. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2014 Nov;69 Suppl 1:S65-S72 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Wolff JL, Darer JD, Larsen KL. Family caregivers and consumer health information technology. J Gen Intern Med 2016 Jan;31(1):117-121 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]


CAHPS: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems
EHR: electronic health record


Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 15.07.20; peer-reviewed by C Johnson, S Bidmon; comments to author 21.09.20; revised version received 09.11.20; accepted 24.03.21; published 10.05.21

Copyright

©Dori A Cross, Zachary Levin, Minakshi Raj. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 10.05.2021.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.