ArticleBMJ open2016
Requirements and access needs of patients with chronic disease to their hospital electronic health record: results of a cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Providing Mobile Patient Access to Their Electronic Secondary Care Patient Record in Adults With Cystic Fibrosis: Results of a Prospective, Parallel, Randomized Open-Pilot Quantitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Trial
- The Impact of Patient Access to Their Electronic Health Record on Medication Management Safety: A Narrative Review.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022Review
- Article
- Patient Use and Experience With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Norway: Results From an Online Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Regional variance in patterns of prescriptions for chronic kidney disease in Japan.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2019Article
- How do patients value and prioritize patient portal functionalities and usage factors? A conjoint analysis study with chronically ill patients.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify patient's views on the functionality required for personalised access to the secondary care electronic health record (EHR) and their priorities for development.
designQuantitative analysis of a cross-sectional self-complete survey of patient views on required EHR functionality from a secondary care EHR, including a patient ranking of functionality.
settingSecondary care patients attending a regional cystic fibrosis unit in the north of England.
participants201 adults (106 (52.7%) males), median age 29 years (range 17-58 years), entered and completed the study. Inclusion criteria are as follows: a confirmed diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, aged 16 years and over, at the time of clinical stability. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantitative responses within 4 themes; (1) value placed on aspects of the EHR; (2) access requirements to functions of the EHR; (3) views on information sent to the EHR and (4) patient feedback entered into the EHR. A ranked score for 15 functions of the EHR was obtained.
resultsHighest ratings (% reporting item as very important/important) were reported for access to clinical measures (lung function (94%), C reactive protein (84%), sputum microbiology (81%) and blood results (80%)), medication changes (82%) and lists (83%) and sending repeat prescription (83%) and treatment requests (80%), while sending symptom diaries was less so (62%). Email contact with clinicians was the most valuable communication element of the EHR (84% very important/important). Of 15 features of the EHR (1=most desirable to 15=least desirable), patients identified 'clinical measures' (2.62 (CI 2.07 to 3.06)), and 'access to medication lists' (4.91 (CI 4.47 to 5.44)), as highest priority for development and the ability to comment on errors/omissions (11.0 (CI 10.6 to 11.5)) or experience of care (11.8 (CI 11.4 to 12.2)) as lowest.
conclusionsPatients want extensive personal access to their hospital EHR, placing high importance on the viewing of practical clinical measures and medication management. These influence routine day-to-day care and are priorities for development.
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.