• Factors Associated with Electronic Personal Health Record Use among Registered Nurses for Their Own Health Management

      Gartrell, Kyungsook; Trinkoff, Alison M. (2014)
      Background: Electronic personal health records (ePHRs) are consumer-centric tools that enable consumers to securely access, manage and share their health information with health care providers. Although the potential for ePHRs to improve healthcare is significant, there is no available evidence on health care professionals' use of ePHRs for their own health management. Nurses have a tremendous opportunity to assist and educate patients in ePHRs. Research has shown that ePHR adoption among patients were influenced by perceived usefulness and ease of use using the technology acceptance model (TAM). This study expanded the TAM adding perceived data privacy security protections and health promoting role models for the ePHR acceptance model. Purpose: This study examined (1) characteristics associated with ePHR use by nurses: health, technology experience, and attitudes about privacy of electronic health information, (2) psychometric properties of the measures in the research model, (3) association of ePHR acceptance constructs: perceived usefulness, ease of use, data privacy and security protections, and health promoting role model with ePHR use, and (4) moderating effects of nurses characteristics: age, chronic illness and/or medication use, providers use of electronic personal health record (EHR) on the relationships between ePHR acceptance constructs and ePHR use. Methods: Registered nurses working in hospitals and members of the nursing informatics community (NIC) completed an anonymous online survey in the Fall of 2013 (n=847). Differences between groups were examined using t-tests and χ² tests. The associations between nurses' characteristics and ePHR use were examined via multiple logistic regression models that also held constant possible confounding covariates and interaction terms. Results: Less than half (41%) of the hospital nurses were ePHR users. The odds of ePHR use was significantly greater among those with chronic medical conditions/medication use (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.06-2.53) and those whose health care providers used EHRs (OR=3.62, 95% CI=2.45-5.36) controlling for age, marital status, current positions and specialty area. ePHR use was more common among NIC nurses (72%). The odds of ePHR use was also increased among NIC nurses with providers that used EHRs (OR=5.99, 95% CI=1.40-25.61), but users were 70% less concerned about privacy of health information online than nonusers (OR=0.32, 95% CI=0.14-0.70) controlling for ethnicity, race and practice regions. The majority of both ePHR users and nonusers would grant access to their primary care providers. However, fewer ePHR users in both nursing groups granted permission to designated family members or friends, other care providers who care for them, or pharmacists to view ePHRs than nonusers who answered hypothetically. Sufficient reliability for usefulness, ease of use, and privacy and security protections, and health promoting role model scales were found (all Cronbach alphas>0.70). Three constructs contributed significantly to ePHR use after adjusting nursing group, age, chronic illness and medication use, and health care providers use of EHR (usefulness, OR=0.87, 95% CI=0.85-0.89; data privacy and security protection, OR=1.04, 95% CI=1.01-1.07; and health promoting role model, OR=1.07, 95% CI=1.04-1.11). Significant interactions existed between perceived data privacy and security protections and providers EHR use, and between perceived health promoting role model and age on ePHR use (p<0.05). Conclusion: The study findings suggest practical insights for nurses. With the experience of using ePHRs, nurses can leverage use of ePHRs for patient education on chronic illness and medication management. Nurses in NIC can also play an important role in practical ePHR design to enhance functionality and security in ePHR with their specialties in nursing informatics.