Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27694670›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2016

Adoption of Electronic Personal Health Records in Canada: Perceptions of Stakeholders.

Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Julie Payne-Gagnon, Erik Breton, Jean-Paul Fortin, Lara Khoury, Lisa Dolovich, David Price, David Wiljer, Gillian Bartlett, Norman Archer

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. I am ready to see you now, Doctor! A mixed-method study of the Let's Discuss Health website implementation in Primary Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

10 authors.

Marie-Pierre GagnonFaculty of Nursing Science, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Julie Payne-GagnonDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Erik BretonCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne, Centre intégré de santé et services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Jean-Paul FortinResearch Centre of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Lara KhouryFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Lisa DolovichFaculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
David PriceFaculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
David WiljerDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Gillian BartlettCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Norman ArcherDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare stakeholders have a great interest in the adoption and use of electronic personal health records (ePHRs) because of the potential benefits associated with them. Little is known, however, about the level of adoption of ePHRs in Canada and there is limited evidence concerning their benefits and implications for the healthcare system. This study aimed to describe the current situation of ePHRs in Canada and explore stakeholder perceptions regarding barriers and facilitators to their adoption.

methodsUsing a qualitative descriptive study design, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews between October 2013 and February 2014 with 35 individuals from seven Canadian provinces. The participants represented six stakeholder groups (patients, ePHR administrators, healthcare professionals, organizations interested in health technology development, government agencies, and researchers). A detailed summary of each interview was created and thematic analysis was conducted.

resultsWe observed that there was no consensual definition of ePHR in Canada. Factors that could influence ePHR adoption were related to knowledge (confusion with other electronic medical records [EMRs] and lack of awareness), system design (usability and relevance), user capacities and attitudes (patient health literacy, education and interest, support for professionals), environmental factors (government commitment, targeted populations) and legal and ethical issues (information control and custody, confidentiality, privacy and security).

conclusionePHRs are slowly entering the Canadian healthcare landscape but provinces do not seem well-prepared for the implementation of this type of record. Guidance is needed on critical issues regarding ePHRs, such as ePHR definition, data ownership, access to information and interoperability with other electronic health records (EHRs). Better guidance on these issues would provide a greater awareness of ePHRs and inform stakeholders including clinicians, decision-makers, patients and the public. In turn, it may facilitate their adoption in the country.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsAttitude of Health PersonnelBiomedical TechnologyCanadaFemaleGovernment AgenciesHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMedical Record AdministratorsQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelAdoptionCanadaElectronic Personal Health Record (ePHR)Qualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID27694670
PMCPMC4930348

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.