Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health personal health records

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consumer healthcare is an approach to encourage patients to participate in the health system, possibly resulting in a larger data and information basis with better quality, potentially leading to healthier lifestyles, better diagnoses and treatments. Personal health records (PHR) are the important parts of consumer healthcare, used to organize healthcare information. Currently, the most well-known systems in this new market are Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health. In this article we list 25 features that we deem the end user sees as necessary for a successful PHR. We analyze the state of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health in regard to these features. This article also examines and compares the design of the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of both systems since it will affect the number and variety of value-added applications that will be developed. The accuracy of an API design could be essential for the commercial success of these PHR systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.google.com/health

  2. http://www.healthvault.com/Personal/index.html

  3. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/google.com/?metric=uv

  4. Currently: pip.verisignlabs.com; openid.trustbearer.com; myopenid.com; myvidoop.com.

References

  1. Spremann K. In: Bamberg G, Spremann K, editors. Agent and principal, agency theory, information, and incentives. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1987. p. 3–38.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis D, Friedman C. In: Ball MJ, Hannah KJ, Newbold SK, Douglas JV, editors. Consumer health informatics. Nursing informatics: where caring and technology meet. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Markle Foundation. Connecting for health. The personal health working group final report. 2003.

  4. Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Kushniruk AW. What do patients do with access to their medical records? Med Info. 2001;10(Part 2):1440–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Halamka JD, Mandl KD, Tang PC. Early experiences with personal health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoyt R, Sutton M, Yoshihashi A. Chapter 4: patient informatics. Med Inf. 2007;69–83: Lulu.com.

  7. Kim MI, Johnson KB. Personal health records: evaluation of functionality and utility. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9:171–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee MC. Evaluation of MyHealtheVet Implementation at the Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Oregon: Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sittig DF. Personal health records on the Internet: a snapshot of the pioneers at the end of the 20th century. Int J Med Inform. 2002;65:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sunyaev A, Chornyi D, Mauro C, Krcmar H. Evaluation framework for personal health records: Microsoft HealthVault vs. Google Health. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 43), Jan. 2010, Kauai, Hawaii.

  11. Sunyaev A, Kaletsch A, Krcmar H. Comparative evaluation of Google Health API vs. Microsoft HealthVault API. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Health Informatics (HealthInf 2010), January 20–23, 2010, Valencia, Spain, pp. 195–201.

  12. Fetter MS. Personal health records: protecting behavioral health consumers’ rights. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2009;30:720–2.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy J. Information systems & technology. Patient as center of the health care universe: a closer look at patient-centered care. Nurs Econ. 2011;29:35–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Montreuil B, Garon R. Toward patient centric and distributed healthcare delivery networks. Clin Invest Med. 2005;28:351–2.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lenert L. Transforming healthcare through patient empowerment. Inf Knowl Syst Manag. 2009;8:159–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Breen GM et al. Improving doctor-patient communication: examining innovative modalities vis-à-vis effective patient-centric care management technology. J Med Syst. 2009;33:155–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stewart M, Towards A. Global definition of patient centred care: the patient should be the judge of patient centred care. Br Med J. 2001;322:444–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Epstein RM et al. Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Heal Aff. 2010;29:1489–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Skilton A et al. Role-based access in a unified electronic patient record. Health Informat J. 2010;16:225–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hayes G, The NHS. Information Technology (IT) and Social Care Review 2009: a synopsis. Inform Prim Care. 2010;18:81–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rusu M et al. eHealth: towards a healthcare service-oriented boundary less infrastructure. Appl Med Inform. 2010;27:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rynning E. Public trust and privacy in shared electronic health records. Eur J Health Law. 2007;14:105–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bakalar R. IBM’s vision for the future in patient-centric global health care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:766–71.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Angst W. Privacy safeguards in PHR adoption. Health Manag Technol. 2008;29:39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hoffman S, Podgurski A. E-Health hazards: provider liability and electronic health record systems. Berkeley Technol Law J. 2009;24:1523–81.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McKnight M. The information seeking of on-duty critical care nurses: evidence from participant observation and in context interviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:145–51.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Allinson R. Specialty medications and prescription adherence. Pharm Times. 2009;75:34.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Google, Google Health FAQ, 24.05.2009; http://www.google.com/intl/en-US/health/faq.html.

  29. Cross M. Goliath moves into healthcare records. BMJ. 2007;335.

  30. Peters K, Niebling M, Slimmer C, Green T, Webb JM, Schumacher R. Usability guidance for improving the user interface and adoption of online personal health records. Oakbrook Terrace: User Centric, Inc; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nolan S. The HealthVault Nickel Tour, 18.05.2009; http://blogs.msdn.com/familyhealthguy/pages/the-healthvault-nickel-tour.aspx.

  32. Kaelber DC, Shah S, Vincent A, Pan E, Hook JM, Johnston D, et al. The value of personal health records. Charlestown: Center for Information Technology Leadership; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sunyaev A, Chornyi D. Supporting chronic disease care quality: design and implementation of a health service and its integration with electronic health records. In: ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, vol. 3, num. 2, pp. 1–21, May 2012.

  34. Wilson EV. Patient-centered E-health. Hershey: IGI Publications; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923, Cologne, Germany

    Ali Sunyaev

Authors
  1. Ali Sunyaev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Sunyaev.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sunyaev, A. Evaluation of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health personal health records. Health Technol. 3, 3–10 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0049-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0049-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation