Back

Patient Portal Activation Among Neurology Patients in Washington, DC

Streicher, N. S.

2026-04-11 health policy
10.64898/2026.04.08.26350061 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and ObjectivesPatient portals have become essential infrastructure for healthcare delivery following the 21st Century Cures Act, yet adoption remains inequitable. Understanding demographic and geographic determinants of portal activation is critical for addressing digital health disparities, particularly among neurology patients who face unique access barriers. We examined the demographic, geographic, and neighborhood-level factors associated with patient portal activation among neurology patients at multiple geographic scales in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 72,417 adult neurology patients seen at two academic medical centers sharing an electronic health record in Washington, DC (February 2021-February 2026). We examined portal activation using multivariable logistic regression and geographic analysis at four nested scales: the metropolitan catchment area, DCs eight wards, individual census tracts (via geocoded patient addresses), and individual DC residents. ResultsPortal activation was 64.7% overall. Activation varied by race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White 76.1%, Non-Hispanic Black 57.0%, Non-Hispanic Asian 57.6%, Hispanic 55.0%) and geography (DC Ward 2: 82.0% vs. Ward 7: 48.0%). Ward-level educational attainment (r = 0.948), broadband access (r = 0.889), and income (r = 0.811) were strongly correlated with activation. Within individual wards, Non-Hispanic White patients activated at 84-91% while Non-Hispanic Black patients activated at 48-64%, demonstrating that neighborhood resources alone do not explain disparities. DiscussionPatient portal activation is shaped by demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors operating at multiple levels. Persistent within-ward racial disparities indicate that geographically targeted interventions must be paired with culturally tailored approaches to achieve digital health equity.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
22.8%
2
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.5%
3
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.3%
4
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.0%
7
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
8
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
9
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.9%
11
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.8%
12
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
13
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
16
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
17
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Journal of Travel Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
23
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
24
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
26
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%