4.5 Article

The Usability of Electronic Personal Health Record Systems for an Underserved Adult Population

期刊

HUMAN FACTORS
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 491-506

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0018720814549238

关键词

patient portal; electronic medical records; usability

资金

  1. National Institute of Health/National Cancer Institute [R21CA133487]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The goals of this study were to identify the demands associated with using electronic personal health records (PHRs) and to evaluate the ability of adults of lower socioeconomic status and low health literacy to use PHRs to perform health management activities. Background: PHRs are proliferating in clinical practices and health care organizations. These systems offer the potential of increasing the active involvement of patients in health self-management. However, little is known about the actual usability of these tools for health consumers. Method: We used task analysis and health literacy load analysis to identify the cognitive and literacy demands inherent in the use of PHRs and evaluated the usability of three currently available PHR systems with a sample of 54 adults. Participants used the systems to perform tasks related to medication management, interpretation of lab/test results, and health maintenance. Data were also gathered on the participants' perception of the potential value of using a PHR. Results: The results indicated that a majority of the participants had difficulty completing the tasks and needed assistance. There was some variability according to task and PHR system. However, most participants perceived the use of PHRs as valuable. Conclusions: Although considered a valuable tool by consumers, the use of PHR systems may be challenging for many people. Strategies are needed to enhance the usability of these systems, especially for people with low literacy, low health literacy, or limited technology skills. Application: The data from this study have implications for the design of PHRs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据