Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30684411›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2018

Utilizing a Prototype Patient-Controlled Electronic Health Record in Germany: Qualitative Analysis of User-Reported Perceptions and Perspectives.

Regina Poss-Doering, Aline Kunz, Sabrina Pohlmann, Helene Hofmann, Marion Kiel, Eva C Winkler, Dominik Ose, Joachim Szecsenyi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. A non-interventive monitoring system prototype for chronic patients with hypertension and asthma.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. A Study on the Relationship between Usability of GUIs and Power Consumption of a PC: The Case of PHRs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Regina Poss-DoeringDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0618-4034
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, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9740-8720
Marion KielDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9892-3449
Eva C WinklerEthics and Patient-Oriented Care, National Centre for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7460-0154
Dominik OseDivision of Cancer Population Science, Department of Population Health Services, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5079-2152
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4483-0028
Heidelberg University · DENational Center for Tumor Diseases · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonal electronic health records (PHR) are considered instrumental in improving health care quality and efficiency, enhancing communication between all parties involved and strengthening the patient's role. Technical architectures, data privacy, and applicability issues have been discussed for many years. Nevertheless, nationwide implementation of a PHR is still pending in Germany despite legal regulations provided by the eHealth Act passed in 2015. Within the information technology for patient-oriented care project funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2012-2017), a Web-based personal electronic health record prototype (PEPA) was developed enabling patient-controlled information exchange across different care settings. Gastrointestinal cancer patients and general practitioners utilized PEPA during a 3-month trial period. Both patients and physicians authorized by them could view PEPA content online and upload or download files.

objectiveThis paper aims to outline findings of the posttrial qualitative study carried out to evaluate user-reported experiences, perceptions, and perspectives, focusing on their interpretation of PEPA beyond technical usability and views on a future nationwide implementation.

methodsData were collected through semistructured guide-based interviews with 11 patients and 3 physicians (N=14). Participants were asked to share experiences, views of perceived implications, and perspectives towards nationwide implementation. Further data were generated through free-text fields in a subsequent study-specific patient questionnaire and researcher's notes. Data were pseudonymized, audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was performed through the Framework Analysis approach. All qualitative data were systemized by using MAXQDA Analytics PRO 12 (Rel.12.3.1). Additionally, participant characteristics were analyzed descriptively using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.

resultsUsers interpreted PEPA as a central medium containing digital chronological health-related documentation that simplifies information sharing across care settings. While patients consider the implementation of PEPA in Germany in the near future, physicians are more hesitant. Both groups believe in PEPA's concept, but share awareness of concerns about data privacy and older or impaired people's abilities to manage online records. Patients perceive benefits for involvement in treatment processes and continuity of care but worry about financing and the implementation of functionally reduced versions. Physicians consider integration into primary systems critical for interoperability but anticipate technical challenges, as well as resistance from older patients and colleagues. They omit clear positioning regarding PEPA's potential incremental value for health care organizations or the provider-patient relationship.

conclusionsDigitalization in German health care will continue to bring change, both organizational and in the physician-patient relationship. Patients endorse and expect a nationwide PEPA implementation, anticipating various benefits. Decision makers and providers need to contribute to closing modernization gaps by committing to new concepts and by invigorating transformed roles.

Indexed as

continuity of careeHealthnationwide implementationpersonal patient-controlled electronic health record

Identifiers

PMID30684411
PMCPMC6334712
OpenAlexW2803674140

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.