Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Jan 12, 2024
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 16, 2024 - Mar 12, 2024
Date Accepted: Aug 16, 2024
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Inequalities and usage of a patient portal: observational study of the NHS App in England.
ABSTRACT
Background:
The adoption of patient portals, supported by initiatives such as the national rollout of the NHS App in England, may improve patient engagement in healthcare. However, concerns remain regarding disparities in the uptake and utilisation of various patient portal features, which have not been fully explored for the NHS App. Understanding patterns of use of the various app functions across diverse populations is essential to address potential inequality trends and to ensure equitable implementation practices.
Objective:
We explored population factors related to deprivation, age, sex, ethnicity, and long-term healthcare needs associated with uptake of the NHS App features using data from 6,386 General Practices (GP)s in England.
Methods:
Negative binomial regression models were used to explore variations in weekly rates of NHS App features used (registrations, logins, prescriptions ordered, medical record views and appointments booked) based on GP level patient sociodemographic variables split into quantiles (for deprivation, Q5= least deprived practices and for all other variables, Q4= practices with the highest population percentage for the given variable).
Results:
We found variations in patient engagement with the different features and among the different demographic categories. There was lower use of features overall in deprived areas (e.g. Q5 vs Q1= -34.0% for registrations, -34.9% for logins, -39.7% for appointment booked, -32.3% for medical record views and -9.9% for prescriptions; P<.001) and in practices with more male patients (e.g. Q4 vs Q1= -7.1% for registration, -10.4% for login, -36.4% for appointments booked, -12.0% for medical record views, -14.4% for prescriptions; P<.001). Larger practices had an overall higher use of different features (e.g. Q4 vs Q1= 3.2% for registration, 11.7% for logins, 73.4% for appointments booked, 23.9% for medical record views and 20.7% for prescriptions; P<.001), as well as those with more white patients (e.g. Q4 vs Q1= 1.9% for registration, 9.1% for logins, 14.1% for appointments booked, 28.7% for medical record views, 130.4% for prescriptions ordered; P<.001). Whereas, usage patterns varied for practices with more younger population (e.g. Q4 vs Q1= 3.1% for registration, 5.6% for logins, 46.5% for appointments booked, -14.8% for prescriptions; P<.001 and 1.7% for medical record views, P=0.003) and in those practices with more patients with long-term healthcare needs (e.g. Q4 vs Q1= -3.6% for registrations, -20.0% for appointments booked, 6.0% for medical record views, 18.3% for prescriptions; P<.001 and -1.7% for logins; P=0.001).
Conclusions:
This study highlights inequalities in the use of the NHS App features, revealing a deprivation gradient and variations across the different demographic categories. Recognising and dealing with these patterns is crucial for addressing inequities in digital health engagement. Tailored interventions and patient support are required to ensure equitable access and utilisation among diverse patient groups. Clinical Trial: N/A
Citation
The author of this paper has made a PDF available, but requires the user to login, or create an account.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.