DOCSLIB.ORG

Perceived Value and Barriers to Use of Personal Health Records by Patients in South Africa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Perceived Value and Barriers to Use of Personal Health Records by Patients in South Africa WITS BUSINESS SCHOOL Perceived Value and Barriers to use of Personal Health Records by Patients in South Africa Mia Erasmus A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration Johannesburg 2014 ABSTRACT Context: Electronic PHR is a new concept in South Africa and there is little research of how individuals perceive PHR in South Africa. The study fills a gap in that there are no published PHR utilisation studies done in South Africa, likely due to the fact that there were very few PHR systems available before 2012. Problem statement: Investigate the perceptions of personal health records amongst patients in South Africa. First Sub-problem: The first sub-problem is to determine the perceived value of personal health records to patients in South Africa. Second Sub- problem: The second sub-problem is to determine the perceived barriers to use of personal health records. Method: The research methodology chosen is an online survey with analysis of the ordinal data using the Distribution-Fitting Algorithmic Approach. The research analysed a survey sent by email to registered individual users on the My Healthspace database. Key findings: Perceived value of PHR to patients: 1) PHR had enough interactive features. 2) Respondents likely to access their PHR again. 3) Respondents want to be able to access their health records online. 4) Respondents agreed most with usefulness of access to their summary file. 5) Respondents disagreed with PHR decreasing the need to see their doctor in person. 6) Respondents wanted PHR to provide reliable health information. Perceived barriers to use of PHR: 1) Respondents disagreed that they did not access their file online due to a lack of interest. 2) Respondents saw themselves as computer literate. 3) Respondents agreed that they have regular access to a computer or smartphone. 4) Respondents disagreed with the statement that they were worried about the security of their health information online. 5) Respondents agreed that they are happy to use an online health system as long as it is protected by a password and encryption. 6) Respondents strongly disagreed with paying a monthly fee for access to their online health records. 7) Respondents disagreed that advertisers should be able to target a specific group with adverts. i Conclusion: In conclusion the survey confirmed some of the findings in international research with regards to patient- perceptions about PHR such as respondents desire to have access to their medical information online and for PHRs to provide reliable health information. Similar to other studies it found that patients do not want to pay for access to a PHR. It differed from the international literature in that patients disagreed with the value of PHR reducing the need to see their doctor in person. This survey also did not demonstrate a lack of trust in the privacy of information as a barrier to use of PHRs. ii DECLARATION I, Mia Erasmus, declare that this research report is my own work except as indicated in the references and acknowledgements. It is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in this or any other university. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mia Erasmus Signed at Johannesburg On the 26 day of February 2014 iii DEDICATION I dedicate this research report to my husband Pierre. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor Anthony Stacey for his all help with the analysis of the data as well as his guidance and support throughout the research report. I would also like to thank Terri Carmichael for her advice during the research proposal phase. I would like to thank all the patients who completed the survey, as well as all those who apologised to me because they never found time to complete it – without their support there would have been no research. I would like to thank My Healthspace for allowing me to email the patient database with the online survey. I would like to thank my business partner, Dr Holly, for all the times she stood in for me during the MBA and all her support. I would like to thank my husband for all his support during the MBA and specifically during this research report. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................... I DECLARATION .................................................................................... III DEDICATION .................................................................................... IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... V TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................. VI LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... IX LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................... IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................... 1 1.2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY .................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 MAIN PROBLEM.......................................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 FIRST SUB-PROBLEM .................................................................................................... 3 1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY............................................................................... 3 1.5 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 4 1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...................................................................................... 5 1.7 ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 7 2.2 DEFINITION OF TOPIC OR BACKGROUND DISCUSSION. .................................... 8 2.3 PERCEIVED VALUE OF PHR ........................................................................ 9 2.3.1 INDIVIDUAL/PATIENT INTEREST IN ACCESSING THEIR HEALTH RECORDS ..................... 9 2.3.2 PATIENT EXPECTATIONS OF PHR ............................................................................ 9 2.3.3 WHAT ASPECTS OF THE PHR OFFER VALUE TO INDIVIDUAL PATIENT USERS? ............. 9 2.3.4 WHAT DO PATIENTS USE THE INFORMATION FOR? .................................................. 11 2.3.5 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 ....................................................................................... 11 2.4 PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO USING A PERSONAL HEALTH RECORD .................... 11 2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND COMPUTER LITERACY ..................................................... 12 2.4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS. ................................................................................... 12 2.4.3 HEALTH STATUS ................................................................................................... 13 vi 2.4.4 PRIVACY OF MEDICAL INFORMATION ...................................................................... 13 2.4.5 RESEARCH QUESTION 2: ...................................................................................... 13 2.5 CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 13 2.5.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 1: ...................................................................................... 14 2.5.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2: ...................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................... 15 3.1 RESEARCH PARADIGM .............................................................................. 15 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................. 16 3.3 POPULATION AND SAMPLE......................................................................... 17 3.3.1 POPULATION ........................................................................................................ 17 3.3.2 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING METHOD ........................................................................... 17 3.3.3 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ................................................................................ 17 3.4 PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION .......................................................... 18 3.5 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ................................................ 19 3.6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ....................................................... 21 3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 21 3.8 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ......................................................................... 23 3.8.1 EXTERNAL VALIDITY .............................................................................................. 23 3.8.2 INTERNAL VALIDITY ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Personal Health Records: the People’S Choice? Lisa Sprague, Senior Research Associate
    Issue Brief – No. 820 November 30, 2006 Personal Health Records: The People’s Choice? Lisa Sprague, Senior Research Associate OVERVIEW — Information technology (IT), especially in the form of an electronic health record (EHR), is touted by many as a key component of meaningful improvement in health care delivery and outcomes. A personal health record (PHR) may be an element of an EHR or a stand-alone record. Proponents of PHRs see them as tools that will improve consumers’ ability to manage their care and will also enlist consumers as advocates for wide- spread health IT adoption. This issue brief explores what a PHR is, the extent of demand for it, issues that need to be resolved before such records can be expected to proliferate, and public-private efforts to promote them. NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY FORUM FACILITATING DIALOGUE. FOSTERING UNDERSTANDING. Issue Brief – No. 820 November 30, 2006 Personal Health Records: The People’s Choice? Take control, health care consumers are exhorted. Don’t risk having your health information swept away in a storm or unavailable when you are taken unconscious to the emergency room. Safeguard yourself and your family. Become empowered! The empowered consumer, a stock character in health-reform scenarios, is not so easily identified in real life. There is a range of reasons for this: A given consumer may be sick or injured or cognitively impaired, thus lack- ing the ability and/or will to exercise choice. He or she may have been conditioned to do what the doctor says without second-guessing. Most commonly, he or she may lack the information that is the coin of empow- erment.
    [Show full text]
  • Patient-Centered Service-Oriented Architecture for Health
    Patient-Centric Secure-and-Privacy-Preserving Service-Oriented Architecture for Health Information Integration and Exchange Mahmoud Awad and Larry Kerschberg Center for Health Information Technology George Mason University http://hit.gmu.edu/ Presentation Outline Research Motivation Research Objectives and Key features Architecture Discussion Conclusion Future Work Research Motivation Electronic Health Records (EHR) Concerns 1. Privacy • HIPAA privacy provisions apply to healthcare providers such as hospitals, physicians and laboratories • Companies that aggregate these health records in electronic format such as Google Health, Microsoft HealthVault and Indivo are not HIPAA- covered entities • Online privacy policies established by the companies versus enforceable federal laws 2. Security • EHRs aggregated online 3. Ownership • Online EHR systems are fully owned by Google, Microsoft, etc. The patient and the individual healthcare providers own portions of the medical records 4. Lack of Standards (Lack of interoperability) • Paper-based medical record systems or electronic systems in proprietary format that are hard to integrate Research Objectives and Key features Develop a secure and privacy-preserving Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) for health information integration and exchange Health information exchanges have to be approved by the patient Avoids centralized online storage of EHRs Complete EHRs can be aggregated on-demand using web service requests EHR exchanges require: One-time use secure tokens for authentication, Privacy policies to control data elements exchanged, Security policies: role-based and fine-grained security policies Use EHR standards for interoperability (Health Level 7 (HL7) ) Architecture Hospital Physician 1. Initiate Request Web Services Web Services 4. Request Results Health Level 7 (HL-7) - Based Privacy Policy 5. Audit Audit Record 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Fulltext (Author)
    1 Role of Nurse Practitioners in Encouraging Use of Personal Health Records 1 2 Abstract. With increased mobility, it is important that individuals keep their own personal health records (PHRs). We encourage nurse practitioners to assume greater responsibility for PHR adoption and recognize the key role they play in recommending PHR use. We also briefly report college students’ perceptions on their exposure to online PHRs. Keywords: personal health records, electronic health records, role of nurse practitioners, Microsoft HealthVault, Google Health 2 3 Introducing Personal Health Records in Practice Settings Personal health records (PHRs) are electronic health records that individuals create and maintain (see Figure 1). PHRs can enhance the flow of health care information by allowing instant access to vital health information when individuals are away from their primary care providers (PCPs), when they relocate and have to find new PCPs, or when they experience health care emergencies. Individuals who suffer from chronic diseases necessitating ongoing monitoring such as diabetes, asthma, attention deficit, cancer, or HIV/AIDS reap particular benefits, as PHRs provide easy online accessibility to health information with patient portals and educational tools tailored to the needs of persons with specific disease states. PHRs have the potential to play a significant role in health care interoperability by enhancing multidisciplinary communication among providers. Since individuals own their PHRs, they have control over what content is posted and can grant permission to others for access to their health information. Typically, PHRs include core health information such as personal and demographic information, current health issues, insurance information, medical history, family history, medications, allergies, and laboratory and radiographic test results.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to the Use of Personal Health Records by Patients: a Structured Review
    Barriers to the use of personal health records by patients: a structured review Chris Showell eHealth Services Research Group, University of Tasmania, Australia ABSTRACT Introduction. An increasing focus on personal electronic health records (PHRs) offers healthcare benefits for patients, particularly those in undeserved and marginalised populations, who are at risk of receiving less effective healthcare, and may have worse health outcomes. However, PHRs are likely to favour text, technical and health literate users, and be less suitable for disadvantaged patients. These concerns have prompted this review of the literature, which seeks evidence about barriers to the adoption and continued use of PHRs, the nature of the evidence for those barriers, and the stage of PHR implementation where particular barriers apply. Methods. Searches in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and ProQuest databases were used to retrieve articles published in English after 2003 in a refereed journal, or presented in a refereed conference or scientific meeting. After screening to remove items which were out of scope, the phase of the PHR implementation, the type of investigation, and PHR barriers were categorised using thematic coding. Results. The search retrieved 395 items; screening identified 34 in-scope publications, which provided evidence of 21 identified barriers to patient adoption and continued use of PHRs, categorised here as Individual, Demographic, Capability, Health-related, PHR or Attitudinal factors. Barriers were identified in most phases of PHR implementation, and in most types of study. A secondary outcome identified that eleven of the publications may have introduced a bias by excluding participants who were less affluent, less capable, or marginalised. Conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Electronic Health Record Application Support Service Enablers
    University of Groningen An e-health driven national healthcare ecosystem Schiza, Eirini IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2018 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Schiza, E. (2018). An e-health driven national healthcare ecosystem. University of Groningen. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 29-09-2021 Published as: M.S. Neofytou, K. Neokleous, A. Aristodemou, I. Constantinou, Z. Antoniou, E.C. Schiza, C.S. Pattichis, and C.N.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Health Record (PHR) User Insights
    Health Informatics Unit Personal health record (PHR) User insights Final report January 2017 Health Informatics Unit Personal health record (PHR) User insights Final report January 2017 Prepared by Jeremy Wyatt, Jan Hoogewerf, Nicola Quinn, John Williams, Clare Clement, Harold Thimbleby, Shiva Sathanandam and Paul Rastall on behalf of the Health Informatics Unit. The Royal College of Physicians The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) plays a leading role in the delivery of high-quality patient care by setting standards of medical practice and promoting clinical excellence. We provide physicians in over 30 medical specialties with education, training and support throughout their careers. As an independent charity representing more than 30,000 fellows and members worldwide, we advise and work with government, patients, allied healthcare professionals and the public to improve health and healthcare. NHS England NHS England exists to create the culture and conditions for health and care services and staff to deliver the highest standard of care and ensure that valuable public resources are used effectively to get the best outcomes for individuals, communities and society for now and for future generations. NHS England empowers and supports clinical leaders at every level of the NHS to make genuinely informed decisions. Central to their ambition is to place patients and the public at the heart of everything they do. NHS Digital NHS Digital is the trusted national provider of high-quality information, data and IT systems for health and social care. NHS Digital collects, analyses and publishes national data and statistical information as well as delivering national IT systems and services to support the health and care system.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Evolving Landscape
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ROUNDTABLE: PERSONAL HEALTH RECORDS UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE Federal Trade Commission Conference Center Washington, D.C. Friday, December 3, 2010 2 1 PARTICIPANTS: 2 Panel 1: 3 KATHY KENYON, Moderator Senior Policy Analyst, 4 Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology 5 COLIN EVANS 6 Chief Executive Officer, Dossia 7 TIM McKAY, Ph.D., CISSP Director of Digital Identify Services CISSIP, 8 Kaiser Permanente 9 LORI NICHOLS Director, HInet 10 GEORGE SCRIBAN 11 Senior Program Manager, Microsoft HealthVault 12 GREGORY STEINBERG, M.D. President and Chief Executive Officer 13 ActiveHealth Management (AETNA) 14 Panel 2: 15 WIL YU, Moderator Special Assistant of Innovations and Research 16 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology 17 STEPHEN DOWNS, S.M. 18 Assistant Vice President, 19 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) 20 DARCY GRUTTADARO, J.D. Director, National Alliance on Mental Illness 21 (NAMI) Child and Adolescent Action Center 22 JOHN MOORE Chilmark Research 3 1 PARTICIPANTS (CONT'D): 2 GAIL NUNLEE-BLAND, M.D., F.A.C.E., F.A.C.P. Interim Chief of Endocrinology, 3 Director of Diabetes Treatment Center, Howard University 4 DOUGLAS TRAUNER 5 Chief Executive Officer, TheCarrot.com 6 Panel 3: 7 JOY PRITTS, Moderator Chief Privacy Officer 8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 9 ROBERT GELLMAN, J.D. 10 JOSH LEMIEUX Director of Personal Health Technology, 11 Markle Foundation 12 LEE TIEN, J.D. Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation 13 TRESA UNDEM 14 Vice President, Lake Research Partners 15 MATTHEW WYNIA, M.D., M.P.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Mestrado Em Sistemas E Computação
    MESTRADO EM SISTEMAS E COMPUTAÇÃO HELENO CARDOSO DA SILVA FILHO UMA CARACTERIZAÇÃO DO USO DE CENÁRIOS DE COMPUTAÇÃO EM NUVEM EM DISCIPLINAS DE GRADUAÇÃO EM COMPUTAÇÃO Salvador 2017 HELENO CARDOSO DA SILVA FILHO UMA CARACTERIZAÇÃO DO USO DE CENÁRIOS DE COMPUTAÇÃO EM NUVEM EM DISCIPLINAS DE GRADUAÇÃO EM COMPUTAÇÃO Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Sistemas e Computação da UNIFACS Universidade Salvador, Laureate International Universities como requisito parcial à obtenção do título de Mestre. Orientador: Prof. Dr. Glauco de Figueiredo Carneiro. Salvador 2017 FICHA CATALOGRÁFICA Elaborada pelo Sistema de Bibliotecas da UNIFACS Universidade Salvador, Laureate International Universities) Silva Filho, Heleno Cardoso da Uma caracterização do uso de cenários de computação em nuvem em disciplinas de Graduação em Computação./ Heleno Cardoso da Silva Filho.- Salvador: UNIFACS, 2017. 206 f. : il. Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Sistemas e Computação de UNIFACS Universidade Salvador, Laureate International Universities como requisito parcial à obtenção do título de Mestre. Orientador: Prof. Dr. Glauco de Figueiredo Carneiro. 1. Computação em nuvem. I. Carneiro, Glauco de Figueiredo, orient. II. Título. CDD: 004 TERMO DE APROVAÇÃO HELENO CARDOSO DA SILVA FILHO UMA CARACTERIZAÇÃO DO USO DE CENÁRIOS DE COMPUTAÇÃO EM NUVEM EM DISCIPLINAS DE GRADUAÇÃO EM COMPUTAÇÃO Dissertação aprovada como requisito final para obtenção do grau de Mestre em Sistemas e Computação da UNIFACS Universidade Salvador, Laureate International
    [Show full text]
  • Názov Dokumentu
    Aktivita H1 a H2 - Riešenie SW platformy na integrovanie evidencie návštevníkov, zberov dát z existujúceho HW ako i prototypov nového HW do jednotného informačného systému Life Defender – Ochranca života – prototyp Míľnik č.1 - Analýza potrieb spoločnosti Life Defender - Ochranca života Táto publikácia vznikla vďaka podpore v rámci Operačného programu Integrovaná infraštruktúra pre projekt Life Defender – Ochranca života, kód projektu v ITMS: 313010ASQ6, ktorý je spolufinancovaný zo zdrojov Európskeho fondu regionálneho rozvoja. sféra, a.s. • Karadžičova 2 • 811 08 Bratislava tel.: +421 2 502 13 142 2 Verzia: 1.6 Life Defender – Ochranca života – Aktivita H1 a H2 – Míľnik č.1 OBSAH 1 ÚVOD ............................................................................................................................................7 1.1 Vízia ............................................................................................................................................8 1.2 Členenie dokumentu .................................................................................................................8 1.3 Slovník pojmov ..........................................................................................................................9 2 EXPERIMENTÁLNY VÝVOJ PROTOTYPU SW PLATFORMY A CLOUDOVÉHO ÚLOŽISKA .... 14 2.1 Predstavenie dostupných nástrojov pre zber dát, vyhľadávanie veľkého množstva dát, ich analýzu, uchovanie a vizualizáciu..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Imaging Software User Manual
    VixwinPlat.book Page i Thursday, November 5, 2009 11:35 AM User Manual Imaging Software VixwinPlat.book Page ii Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:39 PM Warranty Statement There are no warranties, express or implied, with respect to the contents of this document, and all information provided herein is provided “as is.” Gendex reserves the right to periodically change the information that is contained in this document; however, Gendex makes no commitment to provide any such changes in a timely manner or at all. Limitation of Liability In no event shall Gendex or its subsidiaries or affiliates or parent be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages in connec- tion with your use of this document, including, without limitation, loss of busi- ness revenue or earnings, lost data, damages caused by delays, lost profits, or a failure to realize expected savings, even if Gendex was expressly advised of the possibility of such damages. Trademarks Gendex and related marks, images, and symbols are the exclusive properties of, and trademarks of, Gendex Dental Systems. All other brands and marks are the properties of their respective owners. Imaging Technology provided under License by AccuSoft Corporation. ImageGear 1996 - 2001 by AccuSoft Corpora- tion. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Documentation for VixWin Platinum and the operating software are copyrighted with all rights reserved. Under the copyright laws, this documentation may not be reproduced, transmitted, transcribed, or translated into any human or com- puter language in whole or part without the prior written permission of the copy- right holder. About Gendex To learn more about Gendex, access the Gendex Dental System Website (www.gendex.com).
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography.Pdf
    University of Groningen An e-health driven national healthcare ecosystem Schiza, Eirini IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2018 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Schiza, E. (2018). An e-health driven national healthcare ecosystem. University of Groningen. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 30-09-2021 Bibliography AFMC. E-Learning Initiatives | The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, 2016. Available from: https://afmc.ca/medical-education/e- learning-initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Value of Personal Health Records and Web Portals
    LESSONS LEARNED The Value of Personal Health Records and Web Portals to Engage Consumers and Improve Quality July 2012 Introduction About Aligning Forces for Quality The use of patient-facing health information technology (HIT) platforms, such as personal health records (PHRs) Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) is the Robert and web portals, holds the promise of engaging patients in Wood Johnson Foundation’s signature effort to lift their own health care with the ultimate purpose of improving the overall quality of health care in targeted com- overall quality and health outcomes. Several Aligning Forces munities, as well as reduce racial and ethnic dispari- for Quality (AF4Q, a national program of the Robert Wood ties and provide real models for national reform. The Foundation’s commitment to improve health Johnson Foundation) Alliances indicated an interest in explor- care in 16 AF4Q communities is the largest effort ing how these tools may be implemented for specific projects of its kind ever undertaken by a U.S. philanthropy. within their communities. To this end, the Health Information AF4Q asks the people who get care, give care and Technology Resource Center (HITRC) for AF4Q convened the pay for care to work together to improve the quality PHR and Web Portal Workgroup from May 2011–January and value of care delivered locally. The Center for 2012. This brief describes what we know about PHRs/web Health Care Quality in the Department of Health portals and the workgroup’s lessons learned regarding the po- Policy at George Washington University School of tential value that the use of these platforms can bring to pa- Public Health and Health Services serves as the tients, consumers, providers, and local AF4Q communities in national program office.
    [Show full text]