Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29986107›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018

Research use of electronic health records: patients' perspectives on contact by researchers.

Kathleen M Brelsford, Susan E Spratt, Laura M Beskow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Leveraging unstructured data to identify hereditary angioedema patients in electronic medical records.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Kathleen M BrelsfordCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, and Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Susan E SprattDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Laura M BeskowCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, and Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Funding

Ethical Approaches to Research Use of Clinical Records and DataR01LM012178 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BESKOW, LAURA M. · 2014 to 2016
$1.2M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The use of electronic health records (EHRs) for research has the potential to improve the diagnosis and treatment of disease, yet contact with patients based on results of EHR phenotyping has received little attention. Researchers will almost certainly discover discrepancies in EHRs that call for resolution and, in some cases, raise the ethical dilemma of whether to contact patients about a potentially undiagnosed or untreated health concern. The objective of this study was to explore patients' attitudes and opinions about potential contact by researchers who have had access to their EHRs. Materials and methods: We conducted 15 focus groups in four diverse counties in the southeastern United States. We designed vignettes to describe different situations in which researchers conducting a hypothetical study might have reason to consider contact with patients. Results: Many patients believed it was important for researchers to take action if they discovered information suggesting a current serious health concern. Relaying the information through patients' physicians was considered the most appropriate course of action. Across vignettes, there were significant differences between urban and rural sites. Discussion and conclusions: Researchers may increasingly encounter situations involving contact with patients following EHR phenotyping. They should carefully consider the possibility of such contact when planning their studies, including the time and expertise needed to adjudicate potentially serious discrepancies. Our focus group results are one source of input for the development of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthElectronic Health RecordsInformation DisseminationPatientsResearcher-Subject RelationsResearch PersonnelAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID29986107
PMCPMC6118867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.