Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18511764›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Patients' attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Gary W Wood, Tanja Bratan, Katja Stramer, Susan Hinder

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Patient engagement in the inpatient setting: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A holistic view of facilitators and barriers of electronic health records usage from different perspectives: A qualitative content analysis approach.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Is research on patient portals attuned to health equity? A scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London, London N19 5LW. p.greenhalgh@pcps.ucl.ac.uk
Gary W Wood
Tanja Bratan
Katja Stramer
Susan Hinder

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council G0600654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo document the views of patients and the public towards the summary care record (SCR, a centrally stored medical record drawn from the general practice record) and HealthSpace (a personal health organiser accessible through the internet from which people can view their SCR), with a particular focus on those with low health literacy, potentially stigmatising conditions, or difficulties accessing health care.

design103 semistructured individual interviews and seven focus groups.

settingThree early adopter primary care trusts in England where the SCR and HealthSpace are being piloted. All were in areas of relative socioeconomic deprivation.

participantsIndividual participants were recruited from general practice surgeries, walk-in centres, out of hours centres, and accident and emergency departments. Participants in focus groups were recruited through voluntary sector organisations; they comprised advocates of vulnerable groups and advocates of people who speak limited English; people with HIV; users of mental health services; young adults; elderly people; and participants of a drug rehabilitation programme.

methodsParticipants were asked if they had received information about the SCR and HealthSpace and about their views on shared electronic records in different circumstances.

resultsMost people were not aware of the SCR or HealthSpace and did not recall receiving information about it. They saw both benefits and drawbacks to having an SCR and described a process of weighing the former against the latter when making their personal choice. Key factors influencing this choice included the nature of any illness (especially whether it was likely to lead to emergency care needs); past and present experience of healthcare and government surveillance; the person's level of engagement and health literacy; and their trust and confidence in the primary healthcare team and the wider NHS. Overall, people with stigmatising illness were more positive about the SCR than people who claimed to speak for "vulnerable groups." Misconceptions about the SCR were common, especially confusion about what data it contained and who would have access to it. Most people were not interested in recording their medical data or accessing their SCR via HealthSpace, but some saw the potential for this new technology to support self management and lay care for those with chronic illness.

conclusionDespite an extensive information programme in early adopter sites, the public remains unclear about current policy on shared electronic records, though most people view these as a positive development. The "implied consent" model for creating and accessing a person's SCR should be revisited, perhaps in favour of "consent to view" at the point of access.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthFamily PracticeInternetMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedAttitude to ComputersEnglandHumansPatient Education as TopicPublic Opinion

Identifiers

PMID18511764
PMCPMC2413413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.