OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of community tele-paramedicine (CTP) on patient experience and satisfaction relative to community-level indicators of health disparity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study evaluates patient-reported satisfaction and experience with CTP, a facilitated telehealth program combining in-home paramedic visits with video visits by emergency physicians. Anonymous post-CTP visit survey responses and themes derived from directed content analysis of in-depth interviews from participants of a randomized clinical trial of mobile integrated health and telehealth were stratified into high, moderate, and low health disparity Community Health Districts (CHD) according to the 2018 New York City (NYC) Community Health Survey. RESULTS: Among 232 CTP patients, 55% resided in high or moderate disparity CHDs but accounted for 66% of visits between April 2019 and October 2021. CHDs with the highest proportion of CTP visits were more adversely impacted by social determinants of health relative to the NYC average. Satisfaction surveys were completed in 37% of 2078 CTP visits between February 2021 and March 2023 demonstrating high patient satisfaction that did not vary by community-level health disparity. Qualitative interviews conducted with 19 patients identified differing perspectives on the value of CTP: patients in high-disparity CHDs expressed themes aligned with improved health literacy, self-efficacy, and a more engaged health system, whereas those from low-disparity CHDs focused on convenience and uniquely identified redundancies in at-home services. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed-methods analysis suggests CTP bridges the digital health divide by facilitating telehealth in communities negatively impacted by health disparities.

OBJECTIVE: Participation in healthcare research shapes health policy and practice; however, low trust is a barrier to participation. We evaluated whether returning health information (information transparency) and disclosing intent of data use (intent transparency) impacts trust in research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey with a representative sample of 502 US adults. We assessed baseline trust and change in trust using 6 use cases representing the Social-Ecological Model. We assessed descriptive statistics and associations between trust and sociodemographic variables using logistic and multinomial regression. RESULTS: Most participants (84%) want their health research information returned. Black/African American participants were more likely to increase trust in research with individual information transparency (odds ratio (OR) 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-4.34]) and with intent transparency when sharing with chosen friends and family (3.66 [1.98-6.77]), doctors and nurses (1.96 [1.10-3.65]), or health tech companies (1.87 [1.02-3.40]). Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Multirace, and individuals with a race not listed, were more likely to increase trust when sharing with health policy makers (1.88 [1.09-3.30]). Women were less likely to increase trust when sharing with friends and family (0.55 [0.35-0.87]) or health tech companies (0.46 [0.31-0.70]). DISCUSSION: Participants wanted their health information returned and would increase their trust in research with transparency when sharing health information. CONCLUSION: Trust in research is influenced by interrelated factors. Future research should recruit diverse samples with lower baseline trust levels to explore changes in trust, with variation on the type of information shared.

OBJECTIVES: Patients increasingly use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to self-monitor their health status. Visualizing PROs longitudinally (over time) could help patients interpret and contextualize their PROs. The study sought to assess hospitalized patients' objective comprehension (primary outcome) of text-only, non-graph, and graph visualizations that display longitudinal PROs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a clinical research study in 40 hospitalized patients comparing 4 visualization conditions: (1) text-only, (2) text plus visual analogy, (3) text plus number line, and (4) text plus line graph. Each participant viewed every condition, and we used counterbalancing (systematic randomization) to control for potential order effects. We assessed objective comprehension using the International Organization for Standardization protocol. Secondary outcomes included response times, preferences, risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions. RESULTS: Overall, 63% correctly comprehended the text-only condition and 60% comprehended the line graph condition, compared with 83% for the visual analogy and 70% for the number line (P = .05) conditions. Participants comprehended the visual analogy significantly better than the text-only (P = .02) and line graph (P = .02) conditions. Of participants who comprehended at least 1 condition, 14% preferred a condition that they did not comprehend. Low comprehension was associated with worse cognition (P < .001), lower education level (P = .02), and fewer financial resources (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The results support using visual analogies rather than text to display longitudinal PROs but caution against relying on graphs, which is consistent with the known high prevalence of inadequate graph literacy. The discrepancies between comprehension and preferences suggest factors other than comprehension influence preferences, and that future researchers should assess comprehension rather than preferences to guide presentation decisions.

Objective: To determine the effects of an inpatient portal intervention on patient activation, patient satisfaction, patient engagement with health information, and 30-day hospital readmissions. Methods and Materials: From March 2014 to May 2017, we enrolled 426 English- or Spanish-speaking patients from 2 cardiac medical-surgical units at an urban academic medical center. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: 1) usual care, 2) tablet with general Internet access (tablet-only), and 3) tablet with an inpatient portal. The primary study outcome was patient activation (Patient Activation Measure-13). Secondary outcomes included all-cause readmission within 30 days, patient satisfaction, and patient engagement with health information. Results: There was no evidence of a difference in patient activation among patients assigned to the inpatient portal intervention compared to usual care or the tablet-only group. Patients in the inpatient portal group had lower 30-day hospital readmissions (5.5% vs. 12.9% tablet-only and 13.5% usual care; P = 0.044). There was evidence of a difference in patient engagement with health information between the inpatient portal and tablet-only group, including looking up health information online (89.6% vs. 51.8%; P < 0.001). Healthcare providers reported that patients found the portal useful and that the portal did not negatively impact healthcare delivery. Conclusions: Access to an inpatient portal did not significantly improve patient activation, but it was associated with looking up health information online and with a lower 30-day hospital readmission rate. These results illustrate benefit of providing hospitalized patients with real-time access to their electronic health record data while in the hospital. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01970852.

BACKGROUND: More than 100 studies document disparities in patient portal use among vulnerable populations. Developing and testing strategies to reduce disparities in use is essential to ensure portals benefit all populations. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the impact of interventions designed to: (1) increase portal use or predictors of use in vulnerable patient populations, or (2) reduce disparities in use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Reviews for studies published before September 1, 2018. Two reviewers independently selected English-language research articles that evaluated any interventions designed to impact an eligible outcome. One reviewer extracted data and categorized interventions, then another assessed accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Out of 18 included studies, 15 (83%) assessed an intervention's impact on portal use, 7 (39%) on predictors of use, and 1 (6%) on disparities in use. Most interventions studied focused on the individual (13 out of 26, 50%), as opposed to facilitating conditions, such as the tool, task, environment, or organization (SEIPS model). Twelve studies (67%) reported a statistically significant increase in portal use or predictors of use, or reduced disparities. Five studies (28%) had high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Individually focused interventions have the most evidence for increasing portal use in vulnerable populations. Interventions affecting other system elements (tool, task, environment, organization) have not been sufficiently studied to draw conclusions. Given the well-established evidence for disparities in use and the limited research on effective interventions, research should move beyond identifying disparities to systematically addressing them at multiple levels.

Objective: Unintentional medication discrepancies contribute to preventable adverse drug events in patients. Patient engagement in medication safety beyond verbal participation in medication reconciliation is limited. We conducted a pilot study to determine whether patients' use of an electronic home medication review tool could improve medication safety during hospitalization. Materials and Methods: Patients were randomized to use a tool before or after hospital admission medication reconciliation to review and modify their home medication list. We assessed the quantity, potential severity, and potential harm of patients' and clinicians' medication changes. We also surveyed clinicians to assess the tool's usefulness. Results: Of 76 patients approached, 65 (86%) participated. Forty-eight (74%) made changes to their home medication list [before: 29 (81%), after: 19 (66%), p = .170]. Before group participants identified 57 changes that clinicians subsequently missed on admission medication reconciliation. Thirty-nine (74%) had a significant or greater potential severity, and 19 (36%) had a greater than 50-50 chance of harm. After group patients identified 68 additional changes to their reconciled medication lists. Fifty-one (75%) had a significant or greater potential severity, and 33 (49%) had a greater than 50-50 chance of harm. Clinicians reported believing that the tool would save time, and patients would supply useful information. Discussion: The results demonstrate a high willingness of patients to engage in medication reconciliation, and show that patients were able to identify important medication discrepancies and often changes that clinicians missed. Conclusion: Engaging patients in admission medication reconciliation using an electronic home medication review tool may improve medication safety during hospitalization.