An exploratory study of the personal health records adoption model in the older adult with chronic illness

Melanie D Logue, Judith A Effken

Abstract


Background Despite international efforts moving toward integrated care using health information technologies and the potential of electronic PHRs to help us better coordinate patient-centered care, PHR adoption in the United States remains low among patients who have been offered free access to them from private-sector companies. If older adult stand to benefit from the use of PHRs for its usefulness in self-managing chronic illness, why have they not been more readily adopted? Since the chronically ill older adult has unique circumstances that impact their decision to participate in self-directed care, a theoretical framework to help understand factors that influence the adoption of PHRs is important. Here we describe the results of an exploratory study that provided an initial test of such a framework.

Methods The study used a descriptive survey methodology with 38 older adults. The survey questionnaire asked about the personal barriers and facilitators associated with personal health record adoption and included items measuring each of the PHRAM’s four interacting factors (environmental factors, personal factors, technology factors, and self-management), and the resulting behavioural outcome.

Results Younger seniors had a more positive attitude toward computers, knew what health resources were available on the internet, agreed that they had the resources in place to use PHRs, and would be more influenced by a family member than a healthcare provider to use them. Conversely, older seniors reported less confidence in their ability to use Internet-based PHRs and did not perceive that they had the resources in place to use them.

Conclusions The results of this study indicated that personal, environmental, technology, chronic illness, and behavioral factors operated concurrently as personal barriers and/or facilitators to the adoption of PHRs among the older adult with chronic illness. These factors cannot be isolated because the person commonly weighs risk with benefit and determines the personal value of adopting PHRs.


Keywords


personal health records; theoretical framework; chronic illness; older adults; self-management

Full Text:

PDF

References


World Health Organization. Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion. Preventing Chronic Disease: a vital investment. 2008. www.who.int/chp/chronic_disease_report/part1/en/index.html (accessed 12/09/08).

Association of Retired Persons International. Global Focus on Personal Health Records. 2007. www.aarpinternational.org/gra_sub/gra_sub_show.htm?doc_id=541055 (accessed 06/01/12).

Health Consumer Powerhouse. The Empowerment of the European Patient 2009 – options and implications. www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/EPEI-2009/europeanpatient-empowerment-2009-report.pdf (accessed 02/07/12).

Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society. HIMSS Personal Health Records Definition and Position Statement. 2007. www.himss.org/content/files/phrdefinition071707.pdf (accessed 12/03/11).

California Healthcare Foundation. Consumers and Health Information Technology: a national survey. 2010. www.chcf.org//media/Files/PDF/C/ConsumersHealthInfoTechnologyNationalSurvey.pdf (accessed 03/05/10).

Markle Foundation. Americans overwhelmingly believe electronic personal health records could improve their health. Connecting for Health. 2008. www.connectingforhealth.com/resources/ResearchBrief-200806.pdf (accessed 18/04/09).

Kaelber D, Jha A, Johnston D et al. A research agenda for personal health records (PHRs). Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2008;15:729–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2547

PMid:18756002 PMCid:PMC2585530

Winkelman WJ, Leonard KJ and Rossos PG. Patient-perceived usefulness of online electronic medical records: employing grounded theory in the development of information and communication technologies for use by patients living with chronic illness. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005;12:306–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1712

PMid:15684128 PMCid:PMC1090462

Wagner EH, Austin BT, DavisCet al. Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Affairs 2001;20(6):64–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64

PMid:11816692

Bodenheimer T. Interventions to improve chronic illness care: evaluating their effectiveness. Disease Management 2003;6:63–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109350703321908441

PMid:14577900

Green C, Fortin P, MaclureMet al. Information system support as a critical success factor for chronic disease management: necessary but not sufficient. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2006;75:818–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.042

PMid:16920013

Marchibroda J. The impact of health information technology on collaborative chronic care management. Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 2008;14(2):S3–11.

American Health Quality Foundation. Quality Improvement Organizations and Health Information Exchange. American Health Quality Foundation: Washington, DC, 2006.

Chun-Song H. RT-ABCDE strategy for management and prevention of human diseases. Chinese Journal of Integrated Medicine 2008;14:147–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11655-007-9009-z

Logue MD and Effken JA. Modeling factors that influence personal health records adoption. Computers, Informatics Nursing 2012:30:354–62. PMid:22525046

Logue MD and Effken JA. Validating the Personal Health Records Adoption Model using a modified e-Delphi. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Bandura A. Principles of Behavior Modification. Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York, 1969.

Medicare launches Medicare PHR choice pilot-offers beneficiaries an opportunity to maintain their own personal health records. Medical News Today. 2009. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135323.php (accessed 21/04/10).

Medicare.gov. Personal Health Records. www.medicare.gov/(S(rys1wqms3zses3450t3e3v55))/navigation/manageyourhealth/personal-health-records/personal-healthrecords-overview.aspx (accessed 21/04/10).

United States Census Bureau. Arizona Quick Facts. quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html (accessed 21/04/10).

Smith DI and Spraggins RE. Gender in the United States. www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html.2009 (accessed 21/04/10).

Howell DC. Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (6e). Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 2008.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods 2007;39:175–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Norman C and Skinner H. eHEALS: the e-Health Literacy Scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2006;8(4):e27. www.jmir.org/2006/4/e27 (accessed 15/11/08).

Schwarzer R and Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S and Johnston M (eds) Measures in Health Psychology: a user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. NFER-NELSON: Windsor, 1995;pp. 35–7.

Smith B, Caputi P and Rawstorne P. The development of a measure of subjective computer experience. Computers in Human Behavior 2007;23:127–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.04.001

Hung ML, Chou C, Chen CH et al. Learner readiness for online learning: scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education 2010;55:1080–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004

Hertzog M. Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing & Health 2008; 31:190–1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20247

PMid:18183564

Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1994.

Tienda M and Mitchell F (eds) Committee on Transforming Our Common Destiny, National Research Council. Hispanics and the Future of America. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2006.

Pennington RR, Kelton AS and DeVries DD. The effects of qualitative overload on technology acceptance. Journal of Information Systems 2006;20:25–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jis.2006.20.2.25

Bedard JC, Jackson C, Ettredge ML et al. The effect of training on auditors' acceptance of an electronic work system. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2003;4:227–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2003.05.001

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003;27(3):425–78.

Chau PYK and Hu PJ. Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: an exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 2002;18(4):191–229.

Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations (5e). Free Press: New York, 1995.

Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Education Quarterly 1974;2(4).

Montano D and Kasprzyk D. Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In: Glanz K, Rimer B and Viswanath K (eds) Health Behavior and Health Education: theory, research, and practice (4e). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2008; pp. 67–96.

Triandis H. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In: Howe H and Page M (eds) Nebraska Symposium of Motivation 1979. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, 1980; pp. 195–259.

Rogers EM and Scott K. The Diffusion of Innovations Model and Outreach from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine to Native American Communities. National. Network of Libraries of Medicine. 1997. nnlm.gov/pnr/eval/rogers.html (accessed 05/03/10).

Sasmor J. Perception May be Reality: volume one. Jett: Sedona, AZ, 2001.

Ruland CM, Jeneson A, Andersen T et al. Designing tailored Internet support to assist cancer patients in illness management. AMIA 2007 Symposium Proceedings, pp. 635–9. PMid:18693913 PMCid:PMC2655776

Ryan P, Pumilia N, Nehak B et al. Development and performance usability testing of a theory-based computerized, tailored intervention. Computers, Informatics Nursing 2009;27:288–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181b21779

PMid:19726922

Benbassat J, Pilpel D and Tidhar M. Patients' preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behavior Medicine 1998;24(2):81–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08964289809596384

PMid:9695899

Markle Foundation. Connecting for Health: a public private collaborative. The Personal Health Working Group, Final Report, 2003.

Holland M. Electronic Personal Health Records: a survey of consumer attitudes and usage. Health Industry Insights (HI201461). 2006. www.healthindustry-insights.com (accessed 23/07/09).

Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Deloitte Survey Finds Healthy Consumer Demand for Electronic Health Records, Online Tools and Services. Privacy and security of personal health information still major concern. 2009. www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,1014,sid%253D2283%2526cid%253D256809,00.html (accessed 20/07/09).

Hassol A, Walker J, Kidder S et al. Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2004;11:505–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1593

PMid:15299001 PMCid:PMC524631

Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E et al. The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D and Kaheman D(eds) Heuristics and Biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2002; pp. 397–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.025

Trochim WM and Donnelly JP. The Research Methods Knowledge Base (3e). Cengage Learning: Mason, OH, 2008. PMCid:PMC2626648

Schwarz N and Oyserman D. Asking questions about behavior: cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation 2001;22:127–60.

Fowler FJ. Survey Research Methods (3e). Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 1. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002. PMid:12849485

Stone AA and Shiffman S. Capturing momentary, self-report data: a proposal for reporting guidelines. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2002;24:236–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2403_09

PMid:12173681




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v20i3.21

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


This is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal starting from Volume 21 without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open accessFor permission regarding papers published in previous volumes, please contact us.

Privacy statement: The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Online ISSN 2058-4563 - Print ISSN 2058-4555. Published by BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT