To synthesize findings from previous studies assessing information needs of primary care patients on the Internet and other information sources in a primary care setting. A systematic review of studies was conducted with a comprehensive search in multiple databases including OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus. The most common information needs among patients were information about an illness or medical condition and treatment methods, while the most common information sources were the Internet and patients’ physicians. Overall, patients tend to prefer the Internet for the ease of access to information, while they trust their physicians more for their clinical expertise and experience. Barriers to information access via the Internet include the following: socio-demographic variables such as age, ethnicity, income, education, and occupation; information search skills; and reliability of health information. Conclusion: Further research is warranted to assess how to create accurate and reliable health information sources for both Internet and non-Internet users.

Background: Primary care physicians face cognitive overload daily, perhaps exacerbated by the form of electronic health record documentation. We examined physician information needs to prepare for clinic visits, focusing on past clinic progress notes. Methods: This study used cognitive task analysis with 16 primary care physicians in the scenario of preparing for office visits. Physicians reviewed simulated acute and chronic care visit notes. We collected field notes and document highlighting and review, and we audio-recorded cognitive interview while on task, with subsequent thematic qualitative analysis. Member checks included the presentation of findings to the interviewed physicians and their faculty peers. Results: The Assessment and Plan section was most important and usually reviewed first. The History of the Present Illness section could provide supporting information, especially if in narrative form. Physicians expressed frustration with the Review of Systems section, lamenting that the forces driving note construction did not match their information needs. Repetition of information contained in other parts of the chart (eg, medication lists) was identified as a source of note clutter. A workflow that included a patient summary dashboard made some elements of past notes redundant and therefore a source of clutter. Conclusions: Current ambulatory progress notes present more information to the physician than necessary and in an antiquated format. It is time to reengineer the clinic progress note to match the workflow and information needs of its primary consumer.

Background: Identifying effective means of communication between patients and their health care providers has a positive impact on patients’ satisfaction, adherence, and health-related outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to identify the impact of patients’ age on their communication and technology preferences when managing their health. We hypothesize that a patient’s age affects their communication and technology preferences when interacting with clinicians and managing their health. Methods: A mixed methods study was conducted to identify the preferences of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Results were analyzed based on the patients’ age. Grounded theory was used to analyze the qualitative data. Patients were recruited based on age, gender, ethnicity, and zip code. Results: A total of 104 patients were recruited: 34 young adults (19-39 years), 33 middle aged (40-64), and 37 senior citizens (>65). Young adults (mean 8.29, SD 1.66) reported higher computer self-efficacy than middle-aged participants (mean 5.56, SD 3.43; P<.05) and senior citizens (mean 47.55, SD 31.23; P<.05). Qualitative analysis identified the following three themes: (1) patient engagement (young adults favored mobile technologies and text messaging, middle-aged patients preferred phone calls, and senior citizens preferred direct interactions with the health care provider); (2) patient safety (young adults preferred electronic after-visit summaries [AVS] and medication reconciliation over the internet; middle-aged patients preferred paper-based or emailed AVS and medication reconciliation in person; senior citizens preferred paper-based summaries and in-person medication reconciliation); (3) technology (young adults preferred smartphones and middle-aged patients and senior citizens preferred tablets or PCs). Middle-aged patients were more concerned about computer security than any other group. A unique finding among senior citizens was the desire for caregivers to have access to their personal health record (PHR). Conclusions: Patients of different ages have different communication and technology preferences and different preferences with respect to how they would like information presented to them and how they wish to interact with their provider. The PHR is one approach to improving patient engagement, but nontechnological options need to be sustained to support all patients.