Summary of results for each chronic disease group
| Chronic disease area | Results | Comments |
| Diabetes | The PHR does not offer significant advantages in terms of managing overall diabetes treatment and lifestyle. Improvements in some submeasures of process, behavioural, and physiological measures, but most physiological, behavioural, communication and process measures show no significant differences. | The four studies assessing the interventions all have a moderate to high risk of bias |
| Oncology | Differences are seen in a few outcome submeasures, but there is no significant advantage of a PHR in terms of managing overall oncology treatment and lifestyle | The six studies all have a high risk of bias |
| Mental health | There are no statistically significant differences reported for any outcomes | The two studies both have a high risk of bias |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | There are small differences in some measures of behaviour and participant opinions, but there is no significant difference between treatments for the majority of measures of patient health status, various physiological tests, behaviour and self efficacy | The one study has a high risk of bias |
| Stroke | There are no differences for the majority of the outcome measures. Only three out of 31 measures of patient satisfaction and opinion were significantly better with a PHR, and one measure was worse with a PHR. | The one included study has a high risk of bias |
| Palliative care | There are no significant differences in any of the outcomes | The one included study has a high risk of bias |