Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29898730›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Making it work for me: beliefs about making a personal health record relevant and useable.

Fiona Fylan, Lauren Caveney, Alastair Cartwright, Beth Fylan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Fiona FylanBrainbox Research, 46 Town Street, Gildersome, Leeds, LS27 7AA, UK. fiona@brainboxresearch.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1071-4325
Lauren CaveneyBrainbox Research, 46 Town Street, Gildersome, Leeds, LS27 7AA, UK.
Alastair CartwrightNHS Leeds North Clinical Commissioning Group, Leafield House, 107-109 King Lane, Leeds, LS17 5BP, UK.
Beth FylanBrainbox Research, 46 Town Street, Gildersome, Leeds, LS27 7AA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA Personal Health Record (PHR) is an electronic record that individuals use to manage and share their health information, e.g. data from their medical records and data collected by apps. However, engagement with their record can be low if people do not find it beneficial to their health, wellbeing or interactions with health and other services. We have explored the beliefs potential users have about a PHR, how it could be made personally relevant, and barriers to its use.

methodsA qualitative design comprising eight focus groups, each with 6-8 participants. Groups included adults with long-term health conditions, young people, physically active adults, data experts, and members of the voluntary sector. Each group lasted 60-90 min, was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using thematic analysis to address the question "What are people's beliefs about making a Personal Health Record have relevance and impact?"

resultsWe found four themes. Making it work for me is about how to encourage individuals to actively engage with their PHR. I control my information is about individuals deciding what to share and who to share it with. My concerns is about individuals' concerns about information security and if and how their information will be acted upon. Potential impact shows the potential benefits of a PHR such as increasing self-efficacy, uptake of health-protective behaviours, and professionals taking a more holistic approach to providing care and facilitating behaviour change.

conclusionsOur research shows the functionality that a PHR requires in order for people to engage with it. Interactive functions and integration with lifestyle and health apps are particularly important. A PHR could increase the effectiveness of behaviour change apps by specifying evidence-based behaviour change techniques that apps should incorporate. A PHR has the potential to increase health-protective behaviours and facilitate a more person-driven health and social care system. It could support patients to take responsibility for self-managing their health and treatment regimens, as well as helping patients to play a more active role when care transfers across boundaries of responsibility.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecision MakingDisease ManagementFocus GroupsHealth Records, PersonalHumansLife StyleMiddle AgedPatient TransferSelf EfficacyYoung AdulteHealthElectronic health recordHealth communicationPatient acceptancePatient-centred carePersonal health record

Identifiers

PMID29898730
PMCPMC6001055

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.