3.8 Article

Shared Access to Patient Portals for Older Adults: Implications for Privacy and Digital Health Equity

期刊

JMIR AGING
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/34628

关键词

patient portal; electronic health record; care partners; proxy; health equity; health informatics; health services; elderly; older adults; aging; cognition; health system; care delivery; elderly care

资金

  1. John A Hartford Foundation
  2. National Institute on Aging [R35AG072310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the reliance on patient portals as a mainstream mode of health system interactions grows, it is important to prioritize digital health equity and support for all individuals. This article discusses the challenges and opportunities of systematically engaging care partners through shared access to patient portals, particularly for older adults with vulnerabilities.
Growing reliance on the patient portal as a mainstream modality in health system interactions necessitates prioritizing digital health equity through systems-level strategies that acknowledge and support all persons. Older adults with physical, cognitive, sensory, and socioeconomic vulnerabilities often rely on the involvement of family and friends in managing their health, but the role of these care partners in health information technology is largely undefined and poorly understood. This viewpoint article discusses challenges and opportunities of systematic engagement of care partners through shared access to the patient portal that have been amplified in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak and recent implementation of federal information blocking rules to promote information transparency alongside broader shifts toward care delivery innovation and population aging. We describe implementation considerations and the promise of granular, role-based privacy controls in addressing the nuanced and dynamic nature of individual information sharing preferences and fostering person- and family-centered care delivery.

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

3.8
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