ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2019
Patient engagement or information overload: patient and physician views on sharing the medical record in the acute setting.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Identifying Facilitators and Inhibitors of Shared Understanding: An Ethnography of Diagnosis Communication in Acute Medical Settings.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Communicating the Spinal Muscular Atrophy diagnosis to children and the principle of autonomy.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Custodians of Information: Patient and Physician Views on Sharing Medical Records in the Acute Care Setting.Health communication · 2021Article
- Sharing acute care records with patients: potential pitfalls and areas for further research.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019Article
- Specialisation in medicine - alpha dog or colony ant?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019Article
- Awareness of diagnosis and treatment plan among patients in the Accident and Emergency Department of a Nigerian tertiary hospital.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and professional views about the impact of providing full real-time access to the medical record in the in-hospital setting are unknown.
methodsLikert-scale and free-text validated questionnaire survey of physicians and patients from acute medical units in two hospitals. The questionnaire explored recent experiences; views on the formation of trust, and views on sharing either the entire medical record or a summary.
resultsTwo-hundred and forty-eight patient questionnaires (62% response rate) and 32 physician questionnaires (21% response rate) were returned. Twenty-seven per cent of patients did not recall being told their diagnosis. Doctors and patients differed on what practices that they believed built trust.Eighty-one per cent of patients supported the idea of having access to the full medical record (for empowerment; the right to information about oneself; as an
conclusionsThe current system of providing information verbally to patients is inadequate. Patients want more information and are less concerned than physicians about potential negative effects of real-time access to their records. Patient access to medical records (in both full and summary forms) should be evaluated.
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.