Factors Influencing User Satisfaction in Accessing Health Data: Cross-Sectional Survey of United Kingdom Adults

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: P<.001 for ease-of-use comparison, P=.02 for overall evaluation scores

• Effect Size: Experienced users rated ease-of-use lower than expected (79% vs 93%, P<.001)

• Primary Outcome: User satisfaction with PHR systems measured across five domains

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Mean overall satisfaction: experienced 71.0 (SD 19.5) vs hypothetical 74.2 (SD 18.6)

• Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

Findings applicable to existing PHR implementations with focus on improving user experience Highly relevant to My Health Record implementation and ongoing digital health initiatives under Australian Digital Health Agency UK adults accessing patient health records, particularly relevant for primary care and hospital systems

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While patient health records (PHRs) are becoming ubiquitous, nationwide evidence on the drivers of user satisfaction in the United Kingdom remains scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify determinants of PHR user satisfaction in a nationally representative sample of United Kingdom adults and to contrast real-world experiences with hypothetical expectations among individuals without PHR exposure. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in March 2022 using stratified quota sampling (eg, age, sex, ethnicity) through the Prolific platform. Of 1001 respondents, 533 (53%) were female (mean age 41, SD13) years, 468 (47%) reported previous PHR use ("experienced" cohort), and 533 (53%) respondents did not ("hypothetical" cohort). Primary outcomes were five satisfaction items (5-point Likert), overall PHR evaluation (0-100), and stated/anticipated PHR functions. Two-sample t-tests with unequal variances examined between-group differences; multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) assessed demographic equivalence. Significance was set at P<.05. RESULTS: Respondents with PHR experience rated their record easy-to-use in 79% (370/468) of cases versus an anticipated 93% (498/533) among nonusers (P<.001). Experienced users rated appointment-scheduling time-saving at 68% (319/468) compared with 72% (387/533) of nonusers (P=.17). Mean overall evaluation scores were 71.0 (SD 19.5) versus 74.2 (SD 18.6) (t₉₉₇=2.25, P=.02). MANOVA confirmed demographic balance (Wilks Λ=.99, F₇,₉₉₃=1.48, P=.18). Preferred functions across cohorts were viewing personal health information (experience 81%, hypothetical 90%) and lab results (50% vs 76%). Users lacking experience consistently over-estimated future use of carer-related functions (eg, children's data: 36% vs 12%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adults in the United Kingdom value PHRs primarily for personal data access and scheduling convenience. Nonusers displayed optimistic expectations about carer-related features and breadth of functionality, indicating an information gap. Enhancing transparency about current capabilities and expanding features that facilitate caregiving could increase satisfaction and adoption.

References

1. 1.Xenou, M., & Al-Ubaydli, O. (2026). Factors influencing user satisfaction in accessing health data: Cross-sectional survey of United Kingdom adults. JMIR Human Factors. https://doi.org/10.2196/75935