Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28813620›Full record

ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)

Transitioning From Paper to Digital: State Statutory and Regulatory Frameworks for Health Information Technology.

Cason Schmit, Gregory Sunshine, Dawn Pepin, Tara Ramanathan, Akshara Menon, Matthew Penn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing in Legal Epidemiology Studies: Opportunities and Challenges.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Public Health Surveillance: Electronic Reporting as a Point of Reference.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019
    Article
  7. Falling short: how state laws can address health information exchange barriers and enablers.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Cason Schmit1 Chenega Professional and Technical Services, LLC for Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Gregory Sunshine1 Chenega Professional and Technical Services, LLC for Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dawn Pepin1 Chenega Professional and Technical Services, LLC for Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tara Ramanathan3 Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Akshara Menon1 Chenega Professional and Technical Services, LLC for Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Matthew Penn3 Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn all health system sectors, electronic health information (EHI) is created, used, released, and reused. We examined states' efforts to address EHI uses in law to provide an understanding of the EHI legal environment.

methodsAttorney researchers used WestlawNext to search for EHI-related statutes and regulations of the US states, US territories, and the District of Columbia in effect as of January 2014. The researchers independently catalogued provisions by the EHI use described in the law. Researchers resolved discrepancies through peer review meetings and recorded the consensus codes for each law.

resultsThis study identified 2364 EHI-related laws representing 49 EHI uses in 54 jurisdictions. A total of 18 EHI uses were regulated by ≥10 jurisdictions. More than 750 laws addressed 2 or more EHI uses. Jurisdictions varied by the number of EHI laws in effect, with a mean of 44 laws. Texas had the most EHI laws (n = 145). Hawaii and South Carolina had the fewest (n = 14 each).

conclusionsThe EHI legal landscape is complex. The large quantity and diversity of laws complicate legal analysis, likely delay implementation of public health solutions, and might be detrimental to the development of emerging health information technology. Research is needed to understand the effect of EHI-related laws.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical InformaticsPublic HealthUnited Stateshealth informationhealth information technologylawregulation

Identifiers

PMID28813620
PMCPMC5593240

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.