BackgroundThe insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act has increased the number of people with health coverage in the United States. There is speculation that this increase in the number of insured could make accessing health care services more difficult. Those who are unable to access care in a timely manner may use the Internet to search for information needed to answer their health questions.ObjectiveThe aim was to determine whether difficulty accessing health care services for reasons unrelated to insurance coverage is associated with increased use of the Internet to obtain health information.MethodsSurvey data from 32,139 adults in the 2011 National Health Interview Study (NHIS) were used in this study. The exposure for this analysis was reporting difficulty accessing health care services or delaying getting care for a reason unrelated to insurance status. To define this exposure, we examined 8 questions that asked whether different access problems occurred during the previous 12 months. The outcome for this analysis, health information technology (HIT) use, was captured by examining 2 questions that asked survey respondents if they used an online health chat room or searched the Internet to obtain health information in the previous 12 months. Several multinomial logistic regressions estimating the odds of using HIT for each reported access difficulty were conducted to accomplish the study objective.ResultsOf a survey population of 32,139 adults, more than 15.90% (n=5109) reported experiencing at least one access to care barrier, whereas 3.63% (1168/32,139) reported using online health chat rooms and 43.55% (13,997/32,139) reported searching the Internet for health information. Adults who reported difficulty accessing health care services for reasons unrelated to their health insurance coverage had greater odds of using the Internet to obtain health information. Those who reported delaying getting care because they could not get an appointment soon enough (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.9-2.5), were told the doctor would not accept them as a new patient or accept their insurance (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.5 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.5, respectively), or because the doctor’s office was not open when they could go (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.9-2.7) had more than twice the odds of using the Internet to obtain health information compared to those who did not report such access difficulties.ConclusionsPeople experiencing trouble accessing health care services for reasons unrelated to their insurance status are more likely to report using the Internet to obtain health information. Improving the accuracy and reliability of health information resources that are publicly available online could help those who are searching for information due to trouble accessing health care services.

Our institution was primarily using vancomycin dosing regimens that were recommended in pediatric references (40-60 mg/kg/day), which resulted in subtherapeutic serum concentrations in our population based on new monitoring recommendations. Considering that the currently desired therapeutic trough concentrations of vancomycin are 10-20 mg/L, the total daily dosage should be increased.

The objectives of this review were (1) to examine characteristics associated with enrollment and utilization of portals among patients with diabetes and (2) to identify barriers and facilitators of electronic patient portal enrollment and utilization. PubMed and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were systematically searched for papers reporting original research using quantitative or qualitative methods on characteristics, barriers, and facilitators associated with portal enrollment and utilization among patients with diabetes in the United States. The search was limited to articles published between February 1, 2005 (the date of the national symposium on personal health records) and January 1, 2014. Sixteen articles were identified. Of these, nine were quantitative, three were qualitative, and four used mixed-methods. Several demographic characteristics, having better-controlled diabetes, and providers who engaged in and encouraged portal use were associated with increased portal enrollment and utilization. Barriers to portal enrollment included a lack of patient (1) capacity, (2) desire, and (3) awareness of portal/portal functions. Barriers to portal utilization included (1) patient capacity, (2) lack of provider and patient buy-in to portal benefits, and (3) negative patient experiences using portals. Facilitators of portal enrollment and utilization were providers and family members recommending and engaging in portal use. Improved usability, increased access, educating patients how to use and benefit from portals, and greater endorsement by providers and family members might increase portal enrollment and utilization. As more providers and hospitals offer portals, addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators may help patients with diabetes achieve potential benefits.

BackgroundEffective web-assisted tobacco interventions (WATIs) have been underutilized by smokers; moreover, despite practice guideline recommendations, clinical teams do not routinely refer smokers to WATIs. Our goal was to test a clinical practice innovation, an ePortal designed to change practice and patient behavior. Our hypotheses were that the integrated system would result in increased smoker referrals, with an automated follow-up system resulting in more smoker registrations and finally augmentations of the WATI would result in more smokers quitting at 6 months.MethodsPractice ePortal Implementation Trial: Practices (n = 174) were randomized to an online practice ePortal with an “e-referral tool” to the WATI (e-referred smokers received automated email reminders from the practice) and with practice feedback reports with patient tracking and practice-to-patient secure messaging versus comparison (a paper “referral prescription”). Implementation success was measured by the number of smokers referred and smokers registering.Clinical Effectiveness Trial: To estimate the effectiveness of the WATI components on 6-month smoking cessation, registered smokers were randomized into three groups: a state-of-the-art tailored WATI control [control], the WATI enhanced with proactive, pushed tailored email motivational messaging (messaging), and the WATI with messaging further enhanced with personal secure messaging with a tobacco treatment specialist and an online support group (personalized).ResultsPractice ePortal Trial results: A total of 4789 smokers were referred. The mean smokers referred per practice was not statistically different by group (ePortal 24.89 (SD 22.29) versus comparison 30.15 (SD 25.45), p = 0.15). The e-referral portal implementation program resulted in nearly triple the rate of smoker registration (31 % of all smokers referred registered online) versus comparison (11 %, p < 0.001).Clinical Effectiveness Trial results: Active smokers randomized to the personalized group had a 6-month cessation rate of 25.2 %, compared with the messaging group (26.7 %) and the control (17 %). Next, when using an inverse probability weighted selection model to account for attrition, those randomized to the two groups that received motivational messaging (messaging or personalized) were more likely to quit than those in the control (p = 0.04).ConclusionsAmong all smokers referred, the e-referral resulted in nearly threefold greater registrants (31 %) than paper (11 %). The practice ePortal smokers received multiple reminders (increasing registration opportunities), and the practices could track patient progress. The result was more smokers registering and, thus, more cessation opportunities. Combining the proactive referral and the WATI resulted in higher rates of smoking cessation.Trial RegistrationWeb-delivered Provider Intervention for Tobacco Control (QUIT-PRIMO) - a randomized controlled trial: NCT00797628.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0336-8) contains...

This analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences between the CG and MDRD equations, resulting in different dosing recommendations in 21-37% of patients. The clinical significance of these differences is uncertain in the absence of data regarding clinical outcomes that would result from the use of the discordant doses.