Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22847306›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2013

Consumer experience with and attitudes toward health information technology: a nationwide survey.

Jessica S Ancker, Michael Silver, Melissa C Miller, Rainu Kaushal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jessica S AnckerCenter for Healthcare Informatics and Policy, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, USA. jsa7002@med.cornell.edu
Michael Silver
Melissa C Miller
Rainu Kaushal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHR) are becoming more common because of the federal EHR incentive programme, which is also promoting electronic health information exchange (HIE). To determine whether consumers' attitudes toward EHR and HIE are associated with experience with doctors using EHR, a nationwide random-digit-dial survey was conducted in December 2011. Of 1603 eligible people contacted, 1000 (63%) participated. Most believed EHR and HIE would improve healthcare quality (66% and 79%, respectively). Respondents whose doctor had an EHR were more likely to believe that these technologies would improve quality (for EHR, OR 2.3; for HIE, OR 1.7). However, experience with physicians using EHR was not associated with privacy concerns. Consumers whose physicians use EHR were more likely to believe that EHR and HIE will improve healthcare when compared to others. However, experience with a physician using an EHR had no relationship with privacy concerns.

Indexed as

Attitude to ComputersAttitude to HealthElectronic Health RecordsMedical InformaticsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'United States

Identifiers

PMID22847306
PMCPMC3555333

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.