In the implementation and optimization of health care services, assessing the quality of care is an important topic. Quality of care is a broad concept, and it encompasses various aspects of health care. Most commonly used is the Institute of Medicine’s definition of quality of care, which distinguishes 6 different domains: safety, effectiveness, timeliness, patient centeredness, efficiency, and equity [1]. Patient safety refers to the notion that provided care should prevent patients from harm [1]. Effectiveness reflects the use of appropriate interventions and treatments [1]. Timeliness refers to delivering health care services on time [1]. Patient centeredness is about tailoring care to the unique patient’s needs and preferences and engaging them and their proxies in decision-making [1,2]. Efficiency deals with how well resources are used and about avoiding waste [1]. Equity ensures everyone has equal access to the best possible care, independent of personal characteristics or geographic location [1]. Traditionally, quality of care has been approached from a professional’s perspective, aiming to increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) reformulated the term patient centeredness into person centeredness, emphasizing that patients are more than just their health condition and proposing a broadened scope for health and well-being [3]. With this pivot shift from conventional biomedical health care models to a more holistic approach, patient experiences have become an important health care quality outcome, and patient-reported experiences have evolved into important indicators for quality of care [4,5].

Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are assumed to enhance the quality of care because they provide users with information about their health and health care [6-8]. Information can be provided in a one-way manner, by sharing health data in a patient portal or interactively when the system supports messaging between patient and care provider [9-12]. Either way, providing patients with their health data promotes empowerment and enhances people’s engagement in their care plans [6,7,13]. Consequently, health consciousness (ie, the inclination to take health actions), therapy adherence, and self-management of health improve, all of which contribute to better health outcomes [8,9,13-16]. Moreover, transparency of PAEHRs is reported to enhance patient safety, for instance, because patients can identify errors in their health records and have them corrected [12,17,18].

The growing body of literature reporting the effect of using PAEHRs on quality of care predominantly stems from adult health care. Research on the impact of using PAEHRs on the quality of care among children, adolescents, and their parents is limited because the development of PAEHRs for these target groups is delayed by age-specific challenges regarding autonomy and confidentiality [19,20]. Meeting these challenges during the development of PAEHRs is important because research shows that adolescents only share information with professionals who assure their confidentiality [21-23].

The protection of confidentiality and access to health information differs depending on the country or state. While there are different legal measures in place to safeguard confidentiality, all health care systems face the challenge of transferring access rights from parents to adolescents [20,24,25]. Initially, parents have the right to their child’s health information, but as children grow into adolescence, and therefore in capacity and autonomy, these rights are transferred to the adolescent [26,27]. This transfer, varying across and within countries, can be gradual, with both parents and adolescents having access, or occur at a specific age [20,24,25]. Solutions for the emerging autonomy and confidentiality issues aim to balance adolescent autonomy and confidentiality with parental involvement [26-28]. In the United States, laws explicitly safeguard parents’ rights to access their children’s health information [25,29]. Contrastingly, countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and most Scandinavian nations more strongly emphasize the rights of adolescents, depending on their capacity and maturity [24,30]. Restrictions on access to health information for both parents and adolescents vary globally, from shared access during a specified period to no access at all during adolescence [20,24]. The age at which adolescents can access their health information differs from any age in Finland and Estonia to 18 years in Austria and New Zealand [20,24]. Consent from either the adolescent or the parent may be necessary, with certain jurisdictions permitting adolescents to restrict parental access [20,25].

In the Netherlands, a PAEHR named Iuvenelis has been developed for children, adolescents, and their parents. Iuvenelis is used in an interdisciplinary manner in preventive child health care and youth care. It is accessible to adolescents aged ≥12 years and to parents of children aged from 0 to 16 years. Investigating the impact of using Iuvenelis on perceived quality of care among adolescents and parents will contribute to knowledge about using PAEHRs in an age group that is evolving toward autonomous adulthood. This study aimed to investigate how Dutch parents and adolescents visiting preventive health care and youth care perceived the impact of using a client-accessible interdisciplinary health record on quality of care, exploring both the experiences of active users and the expectations or first impressions of nonusers.

A qualitative design with a phenomenological approach was chosen to explore how parents and adolescents perceived the impact of using Iuvenelis on the quality of care [31]. A total of 12 in-depth interviews with 1 to 3 people simultaneously were conducted between October 11 and November 25, 2021. We reported our qualitative study according to the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies) [32]. Multimedia Appendix 1 contains the completed COREQ checklist for this study.

The Dutch North Veluwe region consists of 6 municipalities. These municipalities commissioned 2 organizations providing preventive child health care to children aged 0 to 3 years and children aged 4 to 18 years and 1 organization providing youth care to integrate their services in the Centre for Youth and Family (CJG). The CJG is a network organization that houses professionals from the 3 parent organizations involved. Since 2015, the CJG has provided preventive health care to all 38,000 children aged from 0 to 18 years in the region and provided additional youth care for children and families with behavioral or sociopsychological problems [33]. Both preventive child health care and youth care refer to parents, children, and adolescents as clients rather than as patients. Using a participatory approach, the CJG in 2016 developed a quality standard for their services, following the European “Quality 4 Children” protocol [34]. In dialogue sessions with parents and adolescents, they jointly wrote a document that defined quality of care from a client’s perspective [35]. The document establishes 3 core values for quality—“child-centredness,” “partnership between family and professionals,” and “families in charge when decisions are made”—and describes the corresponding supportive professional behavior for each value [35]. Supporting the integration of services, the electronic health record “Iuvenelis” was built, to which all CJG professionals report. Furthermore, to support client autonomy and collaboration between professionals and families, Iuvenelis includes a tethered client portal in which parents and adolescents can read everything professionals report, such as visit notes, measurements, test results, and referrals. They can manage appointments, send secure messages to professionals, ask questions, comment on written reports, and request corrections of errors. Compliant with Dutch legislation, adolescents receive automatic access to the portal at the age of 12 years [36]. At the same moment, the portal closes for parents, who have a legal right to access Iuvenelis until their child is 16 years of age. However, this right can only be effectuated when their child personally grants permission. When parents are granted access to their child’s record between 12 and 16 years of age, their child can still have single visit reports shielded from them. Iuvenelis was introduced in September 2019.

The study included the parents of children aged 0 to 16 years and adolescents aged ≥12 years, living in the North Veluwe region, further referred to as clients. Clients who visited the CJG in September 2021 were invited personally by CJG professionals, and some general characteristics were reported, such as sex, age, educational level, and native country. Clients who expressed interest in participating were contacted by email or phone to explain the nature and purpose of the interview and to make an appointment. Where feasible, clients were invited to join focus group interviews at a CJG location. Those unable to attend a group session were offered an individual or dual interview live at the location of their choice or on the web. Purposive sampling ensured a varied group representing both sexes, parents and adolescents, various educational levels, active users of Iuvenelis and nonusers, both visitors of preventive health care and youth care, and inhabitants from all participating municipalities. We included parents from native Dutch and migratory backgrounds. In this paper, we use the term migratory background for immigrants who moved to the Netherlands, regardless of their command of the Dutch language. In total, 12 interviews were conducted with 20 participants. Apart from 7 (58%) individual interviews, 2 (17%) double and 3 (25%) triple interviews were conducted. Except for 1 (8%) triple interview with a mother and her 2 teenage children, group interviews consisted of only parents or only adolescents, and respondents did not know each other.

To create an interview topic guide (Multimedia Appendix 2), a working session was convened with an interdisciplinary expert panel of 8 professionals. On the basis of the CJG quality standard and the overarching Institute of Medicine framework [1], they explored what aspects of client-perceived quality of care could be influenced by using Iuvenelis. Textbox 1 presents the main topics from the semistructured interview guide.

All participants were interviewed once by an experienced female interviewer (JB). For the first 6 of the 12 (50%) interviews, a female research assistant (CAdM) assisted as an observer and note-taker. Individual interviews lasted 30 to 60 minutes, and double and triple interviews lasted 90 minutes. When the participants were not acquainted with the client portal, the first part of the interview was used to demonstrate its functionalities in real time, followed by the main interview, which then focused on expectations and first impressions instead of experiences. Every interview was audio recorded, supplemented by note-taking, and by video recorded for web-based interviews.

The interviewers transcribed all interviews verbatim for analysis. A member check was conducted with all participants to affirm transcript accuracy. Data were analyzed in ATLAS.ti (version 9; ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH). On the basis of the topic list with the 6 domains of quality of care as a framework, a preliminary codebook was written. In accordance with best practices, data collection and analysis were conducted in an iterative, cyclical process, checking for data saturation. The interviewing authors (JB and CAdM) conducted a thematic analysis, rereading and coding all transcripts independently [37,38]. After coding a full transcript, the 2 researchers discussed discrepancies in coding until consensus was reached. Simultaneously, in a continuous process, additional codes were added to the codebook, coding definitions were refined, and transcripts were recoded when necessary. Saturation was discussed during analysis and was reached after 12 interviews. Subsequently, JB and CAdM grouped all codes into major themes and discussed the interpretation of themes with all authors.

The interviews were conducted by a researcher working as a policy advisor at the CJG and a research assistant, both trained in qualitative research. Although 1 interviewer worked in the CJG, no working relationship had been established with any of the participants before the study. Every interview started with an introduction of the interviewers and an explanation of the study goal. Combining an experienced researcher with inside knowledge of the CJG and Iuvenelis (JB) with a young researcher from outside the CJG (CAdM) had 2 advantages: first, when present during the interviews with adolescents, the younger researcher could identify easily with the participants and vice versa; second, during analysis, comparing observations and discussing interpretations from both inside and outside perspectives enriched the process of interpretation and limited the risk of bias.

The study was carried out following relevant guidelines and regulations, complying with the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice. On these grounds, the research protocol was approved by the Social Sciences Ethics Committee of Wageningen University (2018-24-Benjamins). All participants received an invitation beforehand with information about the study and gave explicit verbal consent at the beginning of the interview. Each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim, including verbal consent.

Of the 20 participants, 13 (65%) parents and 7 (35%) adolescents were interviewed individually (n=7, 35%), in pairs (n=4, 20%) or in triplets (n=9, 45%). Initially, 23 participants were included, of whom 3 (13%) dropped out due to agenda mismatches. The participants represented both sexes, parents, and adolescents from different educational levels, from native Dutch and migratory backgrounds, and from all involved municipalities and also represented those making use of preventive child health care and youth care services. All adolescents were making use of youth care services. (Table 1).

A total of 35% (7/20) of the participants were not acquainted with the client portal before the interview, and 85% (6/7) of them were from a migratory background. Of the participants who were acquainted with the client portal, 46% (6/13) had received information from a CJG professional and, 54% (7/13) had discovered the portal through a questionnaire about Iuvenelis. In total, 30% (6/20) of the participants came to the CJG office, 50% (10/20) of them were interviewed in their own homes, and 20% (4/20) of the participants had web-based interviews.

A code tree (Multimedia Appendix 3) was created with branches for all 6 aspects of quality of care: safety, effectiveness, timeliness, person centeredness, efficiency, and equity [1]. One additional theme emerged, related to professional attitude and behavior. Because this theme is linked with person centeredness, we divided the theme of person centeredness into 2 subthemes: client perspective and professional attitude. Most expressions from the participants could be coded in the domain of person centeredness (668/1749, 38.19%), followed by safety (382/1749, 21.84%), equity (337/1749, 19.27%), timeliness (158/1749, 9.03%), and efficiency (135/1749, 7.72%), whereas effectiveness was mentioned the least (69/1749, 3.95%). When experiences across quality-of-care domains were compared, it appeared that positive experiences were expressed for person centeredness, safety, and timeliness, whereas the domains equity and effectiveness evoked predominantly expressions of concerns. The participants expressed mixed feelings about the domain efficiency. In the following paragraph, more in-depth analyses of the participants’ reflections on individual dimensions of quality of care will be presented, starting with the domain that generated the highest number of codes.

Both parents and adolescents were satisfied with the security of their health data and the way professional authorization was organized. They generally valued the possibility to see in their view log who accessed their health record. Adolescents all valued their right to decide about access for their parents. Knowing how safety was warranted was an important factor contributing to their trust in the system:

However, half of the portal-using participants were well informed about the privacy and data security measures, and knew where to find the view log. For 1 adolescent, the view log was a reminder that professionals were discussing her situation without her being present, which she did not appreciate:

Correcting errors is generally considered a part of the element “safety” [12]. Throughout the interviews, 2 adolescents and 3 parents encountered registration errors or missed appointments without follow-up when checking their portal. They said identifying errors did not upset them. Quite the reverse; they appreciated the possibility to detect errors, report them, and have them corrected. Moreover, being able to correct mistakes increased their sense of ownership over their care process. The parents said it was important to correct found errors, whereas adolescents said they would not ask for correction:

Independent of their native country and educational level, participants thought very positively of the client portal’s usability. The portal was experienced as easy-to-use and intuitive. The parents and the adolescents could log on to the system easily using digital ID, because people had familiarized themselves with this verification procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Usability on mobile phones was also considered good:

The parents and the adolescents also considered most recorded content comprehensible. However, some portal features, for example, vaccination overview and planning appointments, required explanation, and the parents and the adolescents sometimes encountered jargon or incomprehensible abbreviations:

The most serious concern expressed by parents was that not all clients were informed equally about the existence of Iuvenelis. A total of 7 (35%) out of 20 participants had not received any information about Iuvenelis before the interview, and 86% (6/7) of them were from a migratory background. One parent from a migratory background did use the client portal to manage appointments but was not aware that she could also reread visit reports:

The parents presented many options for improving communication. Emphasizing the importance of providing more equal information to all population groups, 1 parent offered to participate in information meetings with mothers from migratory backgrounds:

The client portal’s 24/7 accessibility did not contribute to faster access to care. However, it did provide parents and adolescents with the opportunity to ask questions or schedule appointments easily and at their convenience. Especially, parents valued this opportunity as time saving, including the immediate access to their health information without the interference of a CJG professional:

In Iuvenelis, all CJG professionals had access to all relevant information stored in the same place, which was considered an advantage contributing to efficiency. Consequently, the parents and the adolescents did not have to repeat their stories when visiting a new professional in the CJG:

However, both parents and adolescents saw room for improvement in expanding Iuvenelis toward other care providers and in a more active role for themselves in uploading information from other care providers in their client portal. They felt that if all their health data were stored in one place and accessible to all their care providers, it would be easier for both care providers and clients themselves to create a clear overview and manage their care:

Parents and adolescents did not associate using Iuvenelis with effectiveness. Although a fully accessible health record allows clients to engage in the management of their care process, none of the participants commented on the actual care process and whether the right choices had been made.

Parents and adolescents did comment on the process and quality of reporting: they felt that reporting quality could be improved. Some reports contained mistakes, and some were incomplete or missing. One parent expressed the concern that reports were sometimes prejudiced, elaborating on risk factors and neglecting protective factors:

With this study, we explored how parents and adolescents visiting preventive health care and social care perceived the quality of care when using Iuvenelis. Both the experiences of active users and the expectations or first impressions of nonusers were included. The results suggest that using Iuvenelis contributed to some, but not all, aspects of quality of care. On the positive side, parents and adolescents felt better informed and expressed more engagement in the care process than before introduction of Iuvenelis. They felt more in control of their health data, reported having faster and simpler access to their health information, and found it easier to manage appointments or ask questions at their convenience. Portal usability and data safety were regarded as high, and interdisciplinary collaboration in Iuvenelis was considered to enhance efficiency. The parents from a migratory background expected that portal access would give them a better understanding of and more control over their care processes.

However, parents expressed concerns about possible unequal access due to a lack of information for the parents from a migratory background. Furthermore, both parents and adolescents saw room for improvement in the broader interdisciplinary use of Iuvenelis. Finally, they felt that effectiveness could be improved by more complete reporting regarding protective factors as well as risk factors.

Recruiting a well-balanced group of participants in this qualitative study was a strength of this study, compared to our previous studies on Iuvenelis, where adolescents were represented in small numbers and participants with migratory backgrounds could not be included [75,76]. The inclusion of the most important characteristics in this study enabled us to explore different client perspectives. Choosing a qualitative research design made it possible to collect rich, in-depth information about the client’s expectations of and actual experiences with using Iuvenelis.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, organizing focus groups proved to be difficult. Although some triple interviews could be organized, most participants were interviewed individually or in couples. Consequently, our study lacked some of the interaction that is usually generated in larger groups, which could be considered a limitation [77]. We partly managed to overcome this limitation because we collected and analyzed data in a continuously iterative process. This meant that topics that were brought up in the first interview could be explored further in the following interviews.

As JB had a role as a policy advisor in the CJG, she was able to introduce the participants to Iuvenelis who were not yet acquainted with the client portal, which allowed us to include more parents with a migratory background and to add valuable information to our data. However, combining a portal demonstration with an interview about how clients perceived the quality of care using this portal might have created a respondent bias: the interviewer’s positive attitude toward the client portal could have evoked socially desirable answers. To enhance trustworthiness, the interviewers followed the interview guide as closely as possible, allowing some adaptation to the conversational flow. A member check was conducted, transcripts were coanalyzed with a researcher with no connections with Iuvenelis or the CJG, and reporting followed the COREQ checklist [32,78].

Using Iuvenelis is expected to contribute to experienced quality of care from the perspectives of both parents and adolescents, specifically to the aspects of person centeredness, timeliness, and safety. Parents and adolescents feel better informed, experience a greater sense of ownership, and are satisfied with data security and portal usability. Clients also report that using Iuvenelis contributes to integrated care. Some quality aspects, however, such as equity in portal access, still need addressing. In general, client information about the portal needs to be improved, specifically focusing on people in vulnerable circumstances, such as those from migratory backgrounds. In addition, to maximize the potential benefit of using Iuvenelis, stimulating a person-centered attitude among professionals is important. With our study, we have investigated parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives regarding all domains of quality of care. However, considering the small number of adolescent participants, adding quantitative data from a structured survey could strengthen the available evidence.