Table 12.

Conclusions and health outcomes: studies investigating hematological and oncological diseases (n=14), of which 2 are of high methodological quality (14%).^a

Author, year	Participants	Comparison	Conclusion	Study design	Clinical	Patient reported	Care utilization	Technology	Qualityb
Cahill et al [90], 2014	Adults with a brain tumor	PHRc users versus PHR nonusers	Using a tethered PHR is associated with improvements in patient uncertainty.	Cross-sectional	—		—d	—
Coquet et al [93], 2020	Patients with cancer+chemotherapy, registered for PPe	Email users versus email nonusers	Sending emails is associated with improved 2-year survival, less missed appointments, and less hospitalizations.	Cohort		—		—
Chiche et al [91], 2012	Adults with ITPf	PP users versus PP nonusers	Patient portal use does not result in improved HRQoLg. The portal is acceptable and feasible.	RCTh	—		—
Groen et al [94], 2017	Patients with lung cancer	PP users	Patient portal use does not affect HRQoL nor patient engagement. It is feasible and acceptable.	QEi	—		—
Hall et al [95], 2014	Patients with cancer resection	PP users	Disclosing results of genetic cancer screening in a patient portal might be feasible and acceptable, and is not associated with more anxiety. Yet, few abnormal results were observed.	QE	—		—
Kidwell et al [97], 2019	Patients aged 13-24 years with sickle cell disease	PP users	Patient portal use is not associated with improved medical decision-making by patients. It is acceptable and easy to use.	QE	—		—
Martinez Nicolás et al [89], 2019	Patients with hematologic malignancy	Pretest PP nonuse versus posttest PP use	Patient portal use is not associated with less hospitalizations, readmissions, nor EDj department visits.	QE		—		—
Williamson et al [102], 2017	Pediatric cancer survivors	PHR users versus PHR registrants	Patient portal use is not associated with less missed appointments.	Cohort	—	—
Collins et al [92], 2003	Patients with hemophilia >11 years	Users	An electronic treatment log is considered feasible and easy to use.	QE	—	—	—
Hong et al [96], 2016	Children aged 13-17 years with cancer or a blood disorder+parents	PP users	A small cohort considers a patient portal to be feasible and useful.	Cross-sectional	—		—
O’Hea et al [98], 2021	Women with breast cancer	PP users versus PP nonusers	Patient portal use does not result in improved HRQoL nor disease knowledge.	RCT	—		—	—
Pai et al [99], 2013	Men with prostate cancer	PHR users	Patients are satisfied with a tethered PHR and find it increases disease knowledge.	Cross-sectional	—		—
Tarver et al [100], 2019	Patients with colorectal cancer	Tethered PHR users	Patients are satisfied with an integrated care plan and find it useful.	Cohort	—	—	—
Wiljer et al [101], 2010	Patients with breast cancer	Pretest PHR nonusers versus posttest PHR users	PHR use is not associated with improved self-efficacy, nor with a clinically relevant decrease in anxiety. Satisfaction is high.	QE	—		—

^aStudies are listed multiple times in Tables 10-13. Per disease category, the relevant subconclusion and health outcomes are described.

^bFor color coding of quality appraisal# and health outcomes, see Table 10.

^cPHR: personal health record.

^dThe study did not assess any health outcome in a certain category.

^ePP: patient portal.

^fITP: idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura.

^gHRQoL: health-related quality of life.

^hRCT: randomized controlled trial.

ⁱQE: quasi-experimental, including pilot or feasibility studies.

^jED: emergency department.