ArticleJAMA network open2020
The Views and Experiences of Clinicians Sharing Medical Record Notes With Patients.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 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
67 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of NoteAid in a Community Hospital Setting: Randomized Trial of Electronic Health Record Note Comprehension Interventions With Patients.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Trial
- Beyond Transparency : Ethical Note Obligations, Documentation Burden, and the Ethical Adoption of AI-Assisted Documentation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Patient Participation in Organ Transplant Selection Meetings: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Stigmatizing Language in Gender-Expansive Patient Records: Corpus Development, Disparity Analysis, and Natural Language Processing-Based Detection Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- MyCODE: a prospective evaluation of lay-language molecular tumor board protocols in precision oncology.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Physician experiences and perceptions of patient-initiated recording in emergency departments: a multi-center survey in Southwestern China.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Educating Medical Trainees About Patient-Centered Documentation in the Time of Open Notes.Annals of family medicine · 2026Article
- Conceptualizing the Core Components of Exposure-Informed Care: A Delphi Quality Improvement Study.Medical care · 2026Article
- Practice Assessment Tool for the Care of Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2025Article
- The Use of ChatGPT-4.0 to Simplify Breast Pathology Reports: A Study on Readability and Accuracy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Changes in Documentation After Implementing Open Notes in Mental Health Care: Pre-Post Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- "There's a lot of people who love them, so why call 'em junkies?": clinician and patient perspectives about words used to describe people who use drugs.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2025Article
- "Open Notes" in Pediatric Acute Care Cardiology: Caregiver and Provider Experiences in a Single Center.Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice · 2025Article
- Patient and Provider Attitudes Toward Patient-Facing Kidney Organ Offer Reporting.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Impact of Patient Online Record Access on Documentation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Guidelines for Patient-Centered Documentation in the Era of Open Notes: Qualitative Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Perceptions of electronic health records by ethnically diverse groups in mental health: A systematic literature review.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- Advancing cancer care through digital access in the USA: a state-of-the-art review of patient portals in oncology.BMJ oncology · 2025Review
- Editorial: How to Make the Most of Open Notes.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- Service Design and Evaluation of OpenNotes for Craniofacial Deformity Management in Patients and their Caregivers.Healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requires that patients be given electronic access to all the information in their electronic medical records. The regulations for implementation of this law give patients far easier access to information about their care, including the notes their clinicians write. Objective: To assess clinicians' views and experiences with sharing clinical notes (open notes) with patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Web-based survey study of physicians, advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, and therapists at 3 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, Washington; and rural Pennsylvania where notes have been shared across all outpatient specialties for at least 4 years. Participants were clinicians in hospital-based offices and community practices who had written at least 1 note opened by a patient in the year prior to the survey, which was administered from May 21, 2018, to August 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of sharing clinical notes with patients. Results: Invitations were sent to 6064 clinicians; 1628 (27%) responded. Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be female (65% vs 55%) and to be younger (mean [SD] age, 42.1 [12.6] vs 44.9 [12.7] years). The majority of respondents were physicians (951 [58%]), female (1023 [65%]), licensed to practice in 2000 or later (940 [61%]), and spent fewer than 40 hours per week in direct patient care (1083 [71%]). Most viewed open notes positively, agreeing they are a good idea (1182 participants [74%]); of 1314 clinicians who were aware that patients were reading their notes, 965 (74%) agreed that open notes were useful for engaging patients. In all, 798 clinicians (61%) would recommend the practice to colleagues. A total of 292 physicians (37%) reported spending more time on documentation, and many reported specific changes in the way they write their notes, the most frequent of which related to use of language that could be perceived as critical of the patient (422 respondents [58%]). Most physicians (1234 [78%]) favored being able to determine readily that their notes had been read by their patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of clinicians in a wide range of specialties who had several years of experience offering their patients ready access to their notes, more than two-thirds supported this new practice. Even among subgroups of clinicians who were less enthusiastic, most endorsed the idea of sharing notes and believed the practice could be helpful for engaging patients more actively in their care.
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.