Barriers to the use of personal health records by patients: A structured review

eHealth Services Research Group, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.2567v1
Subject Areas
Health Policy, Public Health, Human-Computer Interaction
Keywords
Personal health records, eHealth, Barriers, Bias, Systematic review
Copyright
© 2016 Showell
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Showell C. 2016. Barriers to the use of personal health records by patients: A structured review. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2567v1

Abstract

Introduction:

An increasing focus on personal electronic health records (PHRs) offers healthcare benefits for patients, particularly those in undeserved and marginalised populations, who are at risk of receiving less effective healthcare, and may have worse health outcomes. However, PHRs are likely to favour text, technical and health literate users, and be less suitable for disadvantaged patients. These concerns have prompted this review of the literature, which seeks evidence about barriers to the adoption and continued use of PHRs, the nature of the evidence for those barriers, and the stage of PHR implementation where particular barriers apply.

Methods:

Searches in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and ProQuest databases were used to retrieve articles published in English after 2003 in a refereed journal or presented in a refereed conference or scientific meeting. After screening to remove items which were out of scope, the phase of the PHR implementation, the type of investigation, and PHR barriers were categorised using thematic coding.

Results:

The search retrieved 439 items; screening identified 40 in-scope publications, which provided evidence of 21 identified barriers to patient adoption and continued use of PHRs, categorised here as Individual, Demographic, Capability, Health-related, PHR or Attitudinal factors. Barriers were identified in most phases of PHR implementation, and in most types of study. A secondary outcome identified that eleven of the publications may have introduced a bias by excluding participants who were less affluent, less capable, or marginalised.

Conclusions:

PHR barriers can interfere with the decision to start using a PHR, with the adoption process, and with continued use, and the impact of particular barriers may vary at different phases of PHR adoption. The complex interrelationships which exist between many of the barriers is suggested in some publications, and emerges more clearly from this review. Many PHR barriers appear to be related to low socioeconomic status. A better understanding is needed of how the effect of barriers is manifested, how that that effect can be countered, and how planning and implementation of PHR initiatives can make allowance for patient level barriers to PHR adoption and use, with appropriate actions to mitigate the effect of those barriers for more disadvantaged patients.

Author Comment

This is a submission to PeerJ for review.