Personal Health Records: a systematic review

1. Biostatistics and Medical Informatics Department Personal Health Records:a systematic review Authors:Maria João Xará, Nivalda Pereira, Sandra Fontes, Anabela Maio, Maria João Pinto, Cristina Gomes, Hugo Cunha Tiago Adrego, Paulo Pancrácio Supervisor: Dr Ricardo Correia Class 21

2. Structure • Introduction • Objectives • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusions

3. Introduction Why PHR now? There has been a tremendous progress in medicine as well as in informatics during the last decades. Haus, Reinhold; 2006 Recently there has been a remarkable upsurge in activity surrounding the adoption of personal health record (PHR) systems for patients and consumers. Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, Overhage JM, Sands DZ

4. What is a PHR? PHR is a collection of important informationabout individual’s health or the health of someone he is caring for (such as a parent or a child) that he actively maintains and update. American Health Information Management Association, 2006 PHR is amedical historialmade by the patient and that is not controlled by the health professional. PHRs systems are more than just static repositories for patient data.

5. What kind of information can a PHR contain? • Personal identification; • List and dates of significant illness and surgeries; • Current medications and dosages; • Immunizations and their dates; • Allergies; • Organ donor authorization; • Opinions of specialists; • Important test results; • Eye and dental records; • Any information that the user think is important for his health. American Health Information Management Association, 2006

6. Why using PHR? • Potential Advantages • Lower chronic disease management costs • Lower medication costs • Lower wellness program costs • Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, Overhage JM, Sands DZ.; 2006 • To improve communication between the user and his providers • To reduce or eliminate duplicate procedures or processes • Lawrence Gostin, JD;1997

7. Objectives To evaluate the impact of PHRs’ utilization in the users’ health care.

8. Methods

11. Methods (participants)

12. Analysis’ strategy • Groups of reviewers with 2 elements: 36 groups; • Groups analysed between 6 and 8 abstracts; • Results were expressed in Microsoft Excel which includes: • Title, author, year and origin of the article; • Reviewer group; • Inclusion or exclusion; • Criteria not satisfied for exclusion.

13. Analysis Important information: • Characteristics of the individuals • Patient responsibility for the prevention or intervention process • Implemented system • Users’ perception • Health status of the user using the PHR • Hospitalar services

14. Systematic search (after eliminating the repeated articles): n = 229 Systematic search: n = 364 Articles included: n = 20 Percentage Inclusion: 8,7 % Exclusion: 69 % No abstract: 22,3% Results

15. Agreement Number of articles agreed / Total of articles read Mean (%): 90,2 %

16. Exclusion Legend: 1 – Does not respect both cirteria 2 – Does not present PHR’s evaluation of impact 3 – Does not present PHR’s definition

17. Included articles

18. Discussion • 10% of the articles