Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28254735›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2017

A Personal Electronic Health Record: Study Protocol of a Feasibility Study on Implementation in a Real-World Health Care Setting.

Dominik Ose, Aline Kunz, Sabrina Pohlmann, Helene Hofmann, Markus Qreini, Johannes Krisam, Lorenz Uhlmann, Christian Jacke, Eva C Winkler, Hans-Joachim Salize and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Application of Ethics for Providing Telemedicine Services and Information Technology.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2017
    Review
  13. 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

11 authors.

Dominik OseDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5079-2152
Aline KunzDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7899-1789
Sabrina PohlmannDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9379-3799
Helene HofmannEthics and Patient-Oriented Care, National Centre for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9740-8720
Markus QreiniDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4836-8993
Johannes KrisamInstitute for Medical Biometry and Informatics, Department of Medical Biometry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4092-7874
Lorenz UhlmannInstitute for Medical Biometry and Informatics, Department of Medical Biometry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8668-069X
Christian JackeCentral Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0695-2558
Eva C WinklerEthics and Patient-Oriented Care, National Centre for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7460-0154
Hans-Joachim SalizeCentral Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0655-005X
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4483-0028

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA significant potential for patient empowerment is seen in concepts aiming to give patients access to their personal health information (PHI) and to share this PHI across different care settings and health systems. Personal health records (PHRs) and the availability of information through health information exchanges are considered to be key components of effective and efficient health care. With tethered PHRs, as often used in the United States, patients' opportunities to manage their PHI are strongly restricted. Therefore, within the INFOPAT (information technology for patient oriented care) project (2012-2016) in Germany, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the development of a patient-controlled "personal electronic health record" (PEPA) was based on user requirements right from the beginning.

objectiveThe overall objective of the study is to implement and evaluate a PEPA prototype for patients with colorectal cancer who are treated at the National Center for Tumor Diseases in Heidelberg. To achieve this aim, this study has 2 parts: a pre-implementation study (phase 1) and an implementation study (phase 2). The pre-implementation study will include a usability evaluation of the PEPA approach and the consideration of organizational preconditions for the implementation. With the implementation study, we will evaluate the process of implementation (eg, barriers or facilitators), the need for organizational change (eg, processes of communication), and the impact on outcomes (eg, self-efficacy, involvement in care).

methodsThe pre-implementation study is based on a mixed methods approach and comprises qualitative and quantitative element according to our research aim. We will use a think-aloud method for the usability analysis. Additionally, participants will be asked to evaluate their overall satisfaction based on a standardized questionnaire, the System Usability Scale. For the analysis of preconditions, we will conduct semistructured personal interviews with, for example, patients, medical assistants, and physicians. Within the implementation study the outcome evaluation is planned as a prospective, 3-month, open-label "before and after" trial. Additionally, for the analysis of processes and the need for organizational change, we will conduct interviews with the participants (eg, patients, general practitioners, physicians) of the before and after trial.

resultsThis project is part of the INFOPAT project, which is funded (2012-2016) by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The enrolment was completed in July 2016. Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication at end of 2017.

conclusionsExisting approaches of PHRs aim to give patients access to their treatment data. With the PEPA approach and this study, we go a step further: patients have access to their PHI and they can give other persons (eg, their general practitioner) access. With this approach, new possibilities for professional collaboration and the engagement of patients can arise.

Indexed as

chronic carecolorectal cancerfeasibility studiesinterprofessional collaborationpersonal electronic health recordself-efficacytelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID28254735
PMCPMC5355628

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.