OBJECTIVES: In 2023, AMIA's Inclusive Language and Context Style Guidelines (the "Guidelines") were approved by the Board of Directors and made a publicly available resource. This work began in 2021 through AMIA's DEI Task Force and subsequent DEI Committee; many members provided input, feedback, and time to create the Guidelines. In this paper, the authors provide a transparent account of the origin, development, contents, and dissemination of the Guidelines and share plans for their future development and use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our approach to drafting, refining, and distributing the Guidelines included consulting existing language guides, AMIA member reviews, external expert reviews, webinars, and workshops. Through an iterative approach to drafting and refining the Guidelines, the authors consulted relevant language guidelines and many experts throughout and beyond the AMIA community. RESULTS: The Inclusive Language Context Guidelines were formally approved by the AMIA Board of Directors on February 15, 2023. The Guidelines included four principles to be considered in scientific communications: Plurality, Precision, Transparency, and Destigmatization. DISCUSSION: A moment of vulnerability where an AMIA member raised concerns about the use of harmful language during a presentation resulted in the creation of a principled approach to support inclusive language within biomedical and health informatics communications. We envision that the Guidelines will support health equity by challenging dominant public narratives around health, fostering stronger interdisciplinary collaboration and critical thinking about the impact of language, and creating a more welcoming environment for the broader AMIA community. This work could not have been completed without the support of many AMIA members and other researchers in biomedical and health informatics. The Guidelines are a living document that will continue to be updated with input and feedback from the AMIA community into the future.

Scientific commentaries are expected to play an important role in evidence appraisal, but it is unknown whether this expectation has been fulfilled. This study aims to better understand the role of scientific commentary in evidence appraisal. We queried PubMed for all clinical research articles with accompanying comments and extracted corresponding metadata. Five percent of clinical research studies (N = 130 629) received postpublication comments (N = 171 556), resulting in 178 882 comment-article pairings, with 90% published in the same journal. We obtained 5197 full-text comments for topic modeling and exploratory sentiment analysis. Topics were generally disease specific with only a few topics relevant to the appraisal of studies, which were highly prevalent in letters. Of a random sample of 518 full-text comments, 67% had a supportive tone. Based on our results, published commentary, with the exception of letters, most often highlight or endorse previous publications rather than serve as a prominent mechanism for critical appraisal.

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: To provide recommendations on how to most effectively implement advanced features of acute care patient portals, including: (1) patient-provider communication, (2) care plan information, (3) clinical data viewing, (4) patient education, (5) patient safety, (6) caregiver access, and (7) hospital amenities. Recommendations: We summarize the experiences of 6 organizations that have implemented acute care portals, representing a variety of settings and technologies. We discuss the considerations for and challenges of incorporating various features into an acute care patient portal, and extract the lessons learned from each institution's experience. We recommend that stakeholders in acute care patient portals should: (1) consider the benefits and challenges of generic and structured electronic care team messaging; (2) examine strategies to provide rich care plan information, such as daily schedule, problem list, care goals, discharge criteria, and post-hospitalization care plan; (3) offer increasingly comprehensive access to clinical data and medical record information; (4) develop alternative strategies for patient education that go beyond infobuttons; (5) focus on improving patient safety through explicit safety-oriented features; (6) consider strategies to engage patient caregivers through portals while remaining cognizant of potential Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations; (7) consider offering amenities to patients through acute care portals, such as information about navigating the hospital or electronic food ordering.

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.