Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28940495›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2018

Understanding the Potential for Patient Engagement in Electronic Consultation and Referral Systems: Lessons From One Safety Net System.

Jacqueline Nwando Olayiwola, Margae Knox, Kate Dubé, Emily Chen-Yuan Lu, Tem Woldeyesus, Iguehi E James, Rachel Willard-Grace, Delphine Tuot

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Jacqueline Nwando OlayiwolaCenter for Excellence in Primary Care, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94110.ORCID 0000-0002-0309-2831
Margae KnoxCenter for Excellence in Primary Care, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94110.
Kate DubéUniversity of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Emily Chen-Yuan LuDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Tem WoldeyesusDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Iguehi E JamesDivision of Endocrinology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, Center for Innovation in Access and Quality, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Rachel Willard-GraceCenter for Excellence in Primary Care, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94110.
Delphine TuotDivision of Nephrology, eReferral at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFG), Center for Innovation in Access and Quality at ZSFG, UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations at ZSFG, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Funding

Blue Shield of California Foundation 15274459
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand patient, primary care clinician (PCC), and subspecialist perspectives on potential, unexplored roles for patients in electronic consultation and referral (eCR) systems. DATA SOURCES: Primary focus group and survey data collected April-November 2015. Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFG) is part of an integrated public health delivery system. Its mature eCR system was first implemented in 2005. STUDY

designThis mixed-methods study synthesizes patient, subspecialist, and PCC perspectives through two patient focus groups in English, Spanish, and Cantonese (n = 6); subspecialist focus groups (n = 2); and an electronic survey of all PCCs (n = 222/634, 35 percent response). DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsFocus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers coded the transcripts to identify recurrent themes. Survey data were analyzed using summary and bivariate statistics. PRINCIPAL

findingsPatients expressed minimal desire to directly engage in eCR, instead of emphasizing their PCC's role in advocating, informing, and finding health solutions. Subspecialists requested more consistent communication to patients about the electronic consultation process. Most PCCs (52 percent) supported patient engagement in the eCR process, particularly patient ability to track consult status and securely message with subspecialists.

conclusionsResults suggest a continuum of opportunities for patients and their caregivers to engage in eCR systems.

Indexed as

CommunicationReferral and ConsultationAmbulatory Care FacilitiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysicians, Primary CareSan FranciscoSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineElectronic consultationelectronic referralspatient engagementprimary caresafety net systems

Identifiers

PMID28940495
PMCPMC6051985

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.