Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25480721›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015

Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

Peter H Schwartz, Kelly Caine, Sheri A Alpert, Eric M Meslin, Aaron E Carroll, William M Tierney

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT01862133 completednot on this map

Aspiring to Awesome- Patient Preference Privacy Selections in EMR

TypeobservationalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2013 to 2014Enrolled136ConditionsSexually Transmitted DiseasesArmsPatient preferences
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pilot evaluation of sensitive data segmentation technology for privacy.International journal of medical informatics · 2020
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Ethics of Rapid-Learning Health Systems.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017
    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

6 authors.

Peter H SchwartzIndiana University School of Medicine, 410 West Tenth Street, Suite HS3100, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA, phschwar@iu.edu.
Kelly Caine
Sheri A Alpert
Eric M Meslin
Aaron E Carroll
William M Tierney

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrevious studies have measured individuals' willingness to share personal information stored in electronic health records (EHRs) with health care providers, but none has measured preferences among patients when they are allowed to determine the parameters of provider access.

methodsPatients were given the ability to control access by doctors, nurses, and other staff in a primary care clinic to personal information stored in an EHR. Patients could restrict access to all personal data or to specific types of sensitive information, and could restrict access for a specific time period. Patients also completed a survey regarding their understanding of and opinions regarding the process.

resultsOf 139 eligible patients who were approached, 105 (75.5 %) were enrolled, and preferences were collected from all 105 (100 %). Sixty patients (57 %) did not restrict access for any providers. Of the 45 patients (43 %) who chose to limit the access of at least one provider, 36 restricted access only to all personal information in the EHR, while nine restricted access of some providers to a subset of the their personal information. Thirty-four (32.3 %) patients blocked access to all personal information by all doctors, nurses, and/or other staff, 26 (24.8 %) blocked access by all doctors and/or nurses, and five (4.8 %) denied access to all doctors, nurses, and staff.

conclusionsA significant minority of patients chose to restrict access by their primary care providers to personal information contained in an EHR, and few chose to restrict access to specific types of information. More research is needed to identify patient goals and understanding of the implications when facing decisions of this sort, and to identify the impact of patient education regarding information contained in EHRs and their use in the clinical care setting.

Indexed as

Access to InformationPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultAgedChoice BehaviorCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansIndianaInformation DisseminationMaleMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedMiddle AgedPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID25480721
PMCPMC4265220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.