ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019
Electronic health record access by patients as an indicator of information seeking and sharing for cardiovascular health promotion in social networks: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated electronic health record (EHR) access as an indicator of cardiovascular health promotion by patients in their social networks, by identifying individuals who viewed their coronary heart disease (CHD) risk information in the EHR and shared this information in their social networks among various spheres of influence. In a secondary analysis of the Myocardial Infarction Genes trial, Olmsted County MN residents (2013-2015; n = 203; whites, ages 45-65 years) at intermediate CHD risk were randomized to receive their conventional risk score (CRS; based on traditional risk factors) alone or also their genetic risk score (GRS; based on 28 genomic variants). We assessed self-reported and objectively quantified EHR access via a patient portal at three and six months after risk disclosure, and determined whether this differed by GRS disclosure. Data were analyzed using logistic regression and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, family history, and baseline CRS/GRS. Self-reported EHR access to view CHD risk information was associated with a high frequency of objectively quantified EHR access (71(10) versus 37(5) logins;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.