A Qualitative Study of How Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Use an Electronic Stand-Alone Personal Health Record

Abstract

Despite some potential positive benefits resulting from PHR use, several barriers inhibited sustained and effective use over time. Provider and patient education about the benefits of PHR use and about the potential for filling in information gaps in the provider-based record is key to engage patients and stimulate PHR adoption and use.

Perceptions of Persons With Type 2 Diabetes Treated in Swedish Primary Health Care: Qualitative Study on Using eHealth Services for Self-Management Support (Preprint)

“…Fuji, Abbott, and Galt [65], on the other hand, conclude that instead of primarily focusing on issues concerning Internet infrastructure or a lack of Internet access in rural areas, focus should be placed on overcoming other concerns and barriers among the users. Our results could guide such development.…”

A comparative usability study of web-based personal health records.

“…After the required period, interviews were completed, and nine themes emerged from the interviews. Of these, three were positive and included increased awareness and behavioral changes, and six were negative, including "I would have used it if I were sicker," and privacy and security concerns (Fuji et al, 2015). These negative themes can be the subject of future studies and modifications for the system and also reiterate comments from the study completed by Spil and Klein (2015) when analyzing issues in adoption of PHRs.…”

“…This is directly related to the proposed study, which examined PHR usability for college-aged individuals. Though college-aged students have yet to be studied for PHR usability, veterans (Crouch et al, 2015;Shimada et al, 2014), chronically ill (Gee et al, 2015), lowincome (Czaja et al, 2014), and diabetic (Fuji et al, 2015) adults have been analyzed.…”

“…The first gap that this study addresses is the lack of studies on college-aged students using PHRs. Past studies have focused on select user groups using a PHR (Crouch, Rose, Johnson, & Janson, 2015;Czaja et al, 2014;Fuji, Abbott, & Galt, 2015;Gee, Paterniti, Ward, & Soederberg, 2015;Shimada et al, 2014), but none have looked at college-aged students. In fact, of all these studies, only one study included a participant under the age of 30.…”

“…This study also addressed a gap in the literature of comparative usability studies. As previously mentioned, there are studies completed looking at individual populations (Crouch et al, 2015;Czaja et al, 2014;Fuji et al, 2015;Gee et al, 2015;Shimada et al, 2014) and individual PHRs (Price, Bellwood, & Davies, 2015;Curtis, Cheng, Rose, & Tsai, 2011;Ozok, Wu, Garrido, Pronovost, & Gurses, 2014;Monkman, & Kushniruk, 2013;Segall et al, 2011;Sheehan & Lucero, 2015), but there have been no studies solely focusing on gaps between different PHRs and attempting to determine a top performing PHR. One study recently completed took the first step in looking at PHRs comparatively (Czaja et al, 2015) but this study investigated "tethered" PHRs, which is a class of PHRs that are connected to a particular EHR.…”