Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26529325›Full record

ArticleHealth communication2016

Characteristics of Patients Who Report Confusion After Reading Their Primary Care Clinic Notes Online.

Joseph Root, Natalia V Oster, Sara L Jackson, Roanne Mejilla, Jan Walker, Joann G Elmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health communication, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. MedCOD: Enhancing English-to-Spanish Medical Translation of Large Language Models Using Enriched Chain-of-Dictionary Framework.Findings of ACL. EMNLP. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Parent Perspectives on Pediatric Inpatient OpenNotes.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Recent perspectives of electronic medical record systems.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016
    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.

Joseph Roota Division of General Internal Medicine , University of Washington.
Natalia V Ostera Division of General Internal Medicine , University of Washington.
Sara L Jacksona Division of General Internal Medicine , University of Washington.
Roanne Mejillab Blue Shield of California.
Jan Walkerc Division of General Medicine and Primary Care , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School.
Joann G Elmorea Division of General Internal Medicine , University of Washington.

Funding

Improving Accuracy &Outcomes of Breast Cancer ScreeningK05CA104699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS K05 CA 104699NCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient access to online electronic medical records (EMRs) is increasing and may offer benefits to patients. However, the inherent complexity of medicine may cause confusion. We elucidate characteristics and health behaviors of patients who report confusion after reading their doctors' notes online. We analyzed data from 4,528 patients in Boston, MA, central Pennsylvania, and Seattle, WA, who were granted online access to their primary care doctors' clinic notes and who viewed at least one note during the 1-year intervention. Three percent of patients reported confusion after reading their visit notes. These patients were more likely to be at least 70 years of age (p < .0001), have fewer years of education (p < .0017), be unemployed (p < .0001), have lower levels of self-reported health (p < .0043), and worry more after reading visit notes (relative risk [RR] 4.83; confidence interval [CI] 3.17, 7.36) compared to patients who were not confused. In adjusted analyses, they were less likely to report feeling more in control of their health (RR 0.42; CI 0.25, 0.71), remembering their care plan (RR 0.26; CI 0.17, 0.42), and understanding their medical conditions (RR 0.32; CI 0.19, 0.54) as a result of reading their doctors' notes compared to patients who were not confused. Patients who were confused by reading their doctors' notes were less likely to report benefits in health behaviors. Understanding this small subset of patients is a critical step in reducing gaps in provider-patient communication and in efforts to tailor educational approaches for patients.

Indexed as

CommunicationElectronic Health RecordsInternetAdolescentAdultAgedConfusionFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPennsylvaniaPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareReading

Identifiers

PMID26529325
PMCPMC7043205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.