Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands.
Department of Pharmacy, St. Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jun 13;22(1):776. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07967-7.
Adoption of a personal health record (PHR) depends on its usability and perceived usefulness. Therefore, we aimed to assess the usability and perceived usefulness of an online PHR used for medication reconciliation and to assess the association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness at both the in- and outpatient clinics.
A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted with patients with either an outpatient visit (rheumatology ward) or planned admission in the hospital (cardiology, neurology, internal medicine or pulmonary wards). All patients received an invitation to update their medication list in the PHR 2 weeks prior to their appointment. One month after the hospital visit, PHR-users were asked to rate usability (using the System Usability Scale (SUS)) and perceived usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale. The usability and perceived usefulness were classified according to the adjective rating scale of Bangor et al. The usability was furthermore dichotomized in the categories: low (SUS between 0 and 51) and good (SUS 51-100) usability. Associations between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness were analysed.
255 of the 743 invited PHR-users completed the questionnaire. 78% inpatients and 83% outpatients indicated that usability of the PHR was good. There were no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability of the PHR. The majority of the patients (57% inpatients and 67% outpatients) classified perceived usefulness of the PHR as good, excellent, or best imaginable. Outpatients who also used the PHR for other drug related purposes reported a higher perceived usefulness (adjusted odds ratio 20.0; 95% confidence interval 2.36-170). Besides that, there was no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the perceived usefulness of the PHR.
The majority of the patients indicated that the PHR for medication reconciliation was useful and easy to use, but there is still room for improvement. To improve the intervention, further research should explore patients' barriers and facilitators of using a PHR for medication reconciliation.
个人健康记录 (PHR) 的采用取决于其可用性和感知有用性。因此，我们旨在评估用于药物重整的在线 PHR 的可用性和感知有用性，并评估患者、临床、医院和信息通信技术相关因素与门诊和住院诊所的可用性和感知有用性之间的关联。
这是一项多中心横断面研究，纳入了门诊就诊（风湿病病房）或计划住院的患者（心内科、神经内科、内科或呼吸内科病房）。所有患者在预约前两周收到更新 PHR 中药物清单的邀请。在住院就诊后一个月，要求 PHR 用户使用系统可用性量表 (SUS) 对可用性进行评分，并使用 5 分李克特量表对感知有用性进行评分。根据 Bangor 等人的形容词评分量表对可用性和感知有用性进行分类。此外，将可用性进一步分为低（SUS 0-51）和高（SUS 51-100）可用性类别。分析患者、临床、医院和信息通信技术相关因素与可用性和感知有用性之间的关联。
在 743 名受邀的 PHR 用户中，有 255 人完成了问卷。78%的住院患者和 83%的门诊患者表示 PHR 的可用性良好。患者、临床、医院和信息通信技术相关因素与 PHR 的可用性之间没有显著关联。大多数患者（57%的住院患者和 67%的门诊患者）将 PHR 的感知有用性归类为良好、优秀或最佳。同时将 PHR 用于其他药物相关目的的门诊患者报告的感知有用性更高（调整后的优势比 20.0；95%置信区间 2.36-170）。除此之外，患者、临床、医院和信息通信技术相关因素与 PHR 的感知有用性之间没有显著关联。
大多数患者表示，用于药物重整的 PHR 有用且易于使用，但仍有改进的空间。为了改进该干预措施，应进一步研究患者使用 PHR 进行药物重整的障碍和促进因素。
