Search

BackgroundWith the advent of electronic health record (EHR) systems, there is increasing attention on the EHR system with regard to its use in facilitating patients to play active roles in their care via secure patient portals. However, there is no systematic review to comprehensively address patient portal interventions and patient outcomes. ObjectiveThis study aimed to synthesize evidence with regard to the characteristics and psychobehavioral and clinical outcomes of patient portal interventions. MethodsIn November 2018, we conducted searches in 3 electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and a total of 24 articles met the eligibility criteria. ResultsAll but 3 studies were conducted in the United States. The types of study designs varied, and samples predominantly involved non-Hispanic white and highly educated patients with sizes ranging from 50 to 22,703. Most of the portal interventions used tailored alerts or educational resources tailored to the patient’s condition. Patient portal interventions lead to improvements in a wide range of psychobehavioral outcomes, such as health knowledge, self-efficacy, decision making, medication adherence, and preventive service use. Effects of patient portal interventions on clinical outcomes including blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and weight loss were mixed. ConclusionsPatient portal interventions were overall effective in improving a few psychological outcomes, medication adherence, and preventive service use. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of patient portals to improve clinical outcomes. Understanding the role of patient portals as an effective intervention strategy is an essential step to encourage patients to be actively engaged in their health care.

PURPOSE: Here, we report the sensitivity of a personalized, tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assay (Signatera) for detection of molecular relapse during long-term follow-up of patients with breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 156 patients with primary breast cancer were monitored clinically for up to 12 years after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Semiannual blood samples were prospectively collected, and analyzed retrospectively to detect residual disease by ultradeep sequencing using ctDNA assays, developed from primary tumor whole-exome sequencing data. RESULTS: Personalized Signatera assays detected ctDNA ahead of clinical or radiologic relapse in 30 of the 34 patients who relapsed (patient-level sensitivity of 88.2%). Relapse was predicted with a lead interval of up to 38 months (median, 10.5 months; range, 0-38 months), and ctDNA positivity was associated with shorter relapse-free survival (P <.0001) and overall survival (P <.0001). All relapsing triple-negative patients (n = 7/23) had a ctDNA-positive test within a median of 8 months (range, 0-19 months), while the 16 nonrelapsed patients with triple-negative breast cancer remained ctDNA-negative during a median follow-up of 58 months (range, 8-99 months). The four patients who had negative tests before relapse all had hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease and conversely, five of the 122 nonrelapsed patients (all HR+) had an occasional positive test. CONCLUSION: Serial postoperative ctDNA assessment has strong prognostic value, provides a potential window for earlier therapeutic intervention, and may enable more effective monitoring than current clinical tests such as cancer antigen 15-3. Our study provides evidence that those with serially negative ctDNA tests have superior clinical outcomes, providing reassurance to patients with breast cancer. For select cases with HR+ disease, decisions about treatment management might require serial monitoring despite the ctDNA-positive result. Personalized circulating tumor DNA assays predict breast cancer recurrence, especially in triple-negative breast cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about how patients perceive diagnostic uncertainty. We sought to understand how patients and care partners perceive uncertainty in an emergency or urgent care setting, where making a final diagnosis is often not possible. We administered a survey to a nationally representative panel on patient-reported diagnostic excellence in an emergency department or urgent care setting. The survey included items specific to perceived diagnostic excellence, visit characteristics, and demographics. We analyzed responses to two open-ended questions among those who reported uncertainty in the explanation they were given. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, and compared by whether respondents agreed or disagreed the explanation they were given was true. Of the 1,116 respondents, 106 (10 %) reported that the care team was not certain in the explanation of their health problem. Five themes were identified in the open-ended responses: poor communication (73 %), uncertainty made transparent (10 %), incorrect information provided (9 %), inadequate testing equipment (4 %), and unable to determine (4 %). Of the respondents who reported uncertainty, 21 % (n=22/106) reported the explanation of their problem given was not true. The findings of this analysis suggest that the majority of patients and their care partners do not equate uncertainty with a wrong explanation of their health problem, and that poor communication was the most commonly cited reason for perceived uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In the context of validating a measure of patient report specific to diagnostic accuracy in emergency department or urgent care, this study investigates patients' and care partners' perceptions of diagnoses as accurate and explores variations in how they reason while they assess accuracy. Methods: In February 2022, we surveyed a national panel of adults who had an emergency department or urgent care visit in the past month to test a patient-reported measure. As part of the survey validation, we asked for free-text responses about why the respondents indicated their (dis)agreement with 2 statements comprising patient-reported diagnostic accuracy: 1) the explanation they received of the health problem was true and 2) the explanation described what to expect of the health problem. Those paired free-text responses were qualitatively analyzed according to themes created inductively. Results: A total of 1,116 patients and care partners provided 982 responses coded into 10 themes, which were further grouped into 3 reasoning types. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents used only corroborative reasoning in assessing the accuracy of the health problem explanation (alignment of the explanation with either test results, patients' subsequent health trajectory, their medical knowledge, symptoms, or another doctor's opinion), 26% used only perception-based reasoning (perceptions of diagnostic process, uncertainty around the explanation received, or clinical team's attitudes), and 27% used both types of reasoning. The remaining 15% used general beliefs or nonexplicated logic (used only about accurate diagnoses) and combinations of general reasoning with perception-based and corroborative. Conclusions: Patients and care partners used multifaceted reasoning in their assessment of diagnostic accuracy. Implications: As health care shifts toward meaningful diagnostic co-production and shared decision making, in-depth understanding of variations in patient reasoning and mental models informs use in clinical practice. Highlights: An analysis of 982 responses examined how patients and care partners reason about the accuracy of diagnoses they received in emergency or urgent care. In reasoning, people used their perception of the process and whether the diagnosis matched other factual information they have. We introduce "patient reasoning" in the diagnostic measurement context as an area of further research to inform diagnostic shared decision making and co-production of health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]