How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review

Abstract

Objective: To examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific aims were to examine how outcomes are produced, and how variations in outcomes can be explained.

Methods: We used a realist review method, which aims to describe how 'an intervention works, for whom, and in what circumstances' by analyzing patterns between context, mechanism, and outcomes. We reviewed 32 evaluation studies of patient portals published since 2003.

Results: The reviewed evaluations indicate that as a complement to existing health services, patient portals can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes, patient behavior, and experiences. Four different mechanisms are reported to yield the reported outcome improvements. These are patient insight into personal health information, activation of information, interpersonal continuity of care, and service convenience. The vast majority of evaluations were conducted in integrated health service networks in the USA, and we detected no substantial variation in outcomes across these networks.

Discussion and conclusions: Patient portals may impact clinical outcomes and health service delivery through multiple mechanisms. Given the relative uniformity of evaluation contexts, we were not able to detect patterns in how patient portals work in different contexts. Nonetheless, it appears from the overwhelming proportion of patient portal evaluations coming from integrated health service networks, that these networks provide more fertile contexts for patient portals to be effective. To improve the understanding of how patient portals work, future evaluations of patient portals should capture information about mechanisms and context that influence their outcomes.

Figure 1

Paper flow diagram.

Figure 2

Hypothesized links between mechanisms and outcomes. The thin arrows signify that at least 50% of authors hypothesized that a given mechanism produced a given outcome. The thick arrows indicate that this was the case for at least 75% of authors.