ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015
Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01862133 (Aspiring to Awesome- Patient Preference Privacy Selections in EMR), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Aspiring to Awesome- Patient Preference Privacy Selections in EMR
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- State of the art and a mixed-method personalized approach to assess patient perceptions on medical record sharing and sensitivity.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020Pooled it
- Collection and sharing of health information in mental health and related systems in Australia: perspectives of people who access mental health services.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 2): Focus Group Study.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
- Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 1): Focus Group Study.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
- Mental health professional perspectives on health data sharing: Mixed methods study.Health informatics journal · 2020Article
- Mental health professionals' perceptions on patients control of data sharing.Health informatics journal · 2020Article
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Related to the Inclusion of Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities in Electronic Health Record Research: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Legal perspectives on black box recording devices in the operating environment.The British journal of surgery · 2019Review
- De facto diagnosis specialties: Recognition and discovery.Learning health systems · 2018Article
- Developing a Shared Patient-Centered, Web-Based Medication Platform for Type 2 Diabetes Patients and Their Health Care Providers: Qualitative Study on User Requirements.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- A Study to Elicit Behavioral Health Patients' and Providers' Opinions on Health Records Consent.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2017Article
- Factors affecting willingness to share electronic health data among California consumers.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Capturing the patients' voices: Planning for patient-centered electronic health record use.International journal of medical informatics · 2016Article
- Family Caregivers and Consumer Health Information Technology.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Review
- Patients' Online Access to Their Primary Care Electronic Health Records and Linked Online Services: Implications for Research and Practice.Journal of personalized medicine · 2015Article
- You, me, and the computer makes three: navigating the doctor-patient relationship in the age of electronic health records.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Article
- Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Article
- Point and counterpoint: patient control of access to data in their electronic health records.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Article
- A pilot comparison of medical records sensitivity perspectives of patients with behavioral health conditions and healthcare providers.Health informatics journalArticle
- My data choices: Pilot evaluation of patient-controlled medical record sharing technology.Health informatics journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionApplying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data.
methodsWe designed a program that captures patients' preferences for provider access to an urban health system's EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers' access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients' preferences. Providers could "break the glass" to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users "broke the glass," and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions.
resultsEight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers "broke the glass" 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers "broke the glass" for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider-patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer.
conclusionsPatients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients' preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers' needs, and health care quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.