Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25649841›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2015

Patient and public attitudes towards informed consent models and levels of awareness of Electronic Health Records in the UK.

Fiona Riordan, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Julie E Reed, Cicely Marston, Derek Bell, Azeem Majeed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

6 authors.

Fiona RiordanNIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: c.papoutsi@imperial.ac.uk.
Julie E ReedNIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Cicely MarstonDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Derek BellNIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Azeem MajeedNIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086124/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) forms an integral part of the information strategy for the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, with the aim of facilitating health information exchange for patient care and secondary use, including research and healthcare planning. Implementing EHR systems requires an understanding of patient expectations for consent mechanisms and consideration of public awareness towards information sharing as might be made possible through integrated EHRs across primary and secondary health providers.

objectivesTo explore levels of public awareness about EHRs and to examine attitudes towards different consent models with respect to sharing identifiable and de-identified records for healthcare provision, research and planning.

methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire survey was administered to adult patients and members of the public in primary and secondary care clinics in West London, UK in 2011. In total, 5331 individuals participated in the survey, and 3157 were included in the final analysis.

resultsThe majority (91%) of respondents expected to be explicitly asked for consent for their identifiable records to be accessed for health provision, research or planning. Half the respondents (49%) did not expect to be asked for consent before their de-identified records were accessed. Compared with White British respondents, those from all other ethnic groups were more likely to anticipate their permission would be obtained before their de-identified records were used. Of the study population, 59% reported already being aware of EHRs before the survey. Older respondents and individuals with complex patterns of interaction with healthcare services were more likely to report prior awareness of EHRs. Individuals self-identifying as belonging to ethnic groups other than White British, and those with lower educational qualifications were less likely to report being aware of EHRs than White British respondents and respondents with degree-level education, respectively. Those who reported being aware of EHRs were less likely to say they expected explicit consent to be sought before use of their de-identified record.

conclusionsA large number of patients remain unaware of EHRs, while preference for implicit consent is stronger among those who report previous awareness. Differences in awareness levels and consent expectations between groups with different socio-demographic characteristics suggest that public education and information campaigns should target specific groups to increase public awareness and ensure meaningful informed consent mechanisms.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthElectronic Health RecordsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInformed ConsentPublic OpinionAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatientsElectronic health recordsInformation governanceInformed consentPatient attitudesPolicy

Identifiers

PMID25649841
PMCPMC4344220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.