Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32250279›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Adoption of an Electronic Patient Record Sharing Pilot Project: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Jingxuan Wang, Junjie Huang, Clement Shek Kei Cheung, Wing Nam Wong, Ngai Tseung Cheung, Martin Cs Wong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Telehealth and Burn Care: From Faxes to Augmented Reality.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jingxuan WangThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, New Territories, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-1570-7266
Junjie HuangThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, New Territories, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-2382-4443
Clement Shek Kei CheungInformation Technology and Health Informatics Division, Hospital Authority, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9014-8628
Wing Nam WongInformation Technology and Health Informatics Division, Hospital Authority, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5093-9281
Ngai Tseung CheungInformation Technology and Health Informatics Division, Hospital Authority, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3020-0049
Martin Cs WongThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, New Territories, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0001-7706-9370
Hospital Authority · HKHong Kong Jockey Club · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Public Private Interface-Electronic Patient Record (PPI-ePR) system was implemented as a new electronic platform to facilitate collaboration between the public and private sectors in Hong Kong. However, its barriers to participate and benefits have not been comprehensively assessed.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the awareness, acceptance, perceived benefits, and obstacles to participation among private doctors and the general public.

methodsFrom December 2012 to January 2013, 2435 telephone interviews were performed by trained interviewers to survey randomly selected patients who were enrolled or not enrolled in the PPI-ePR system. In addition, self-administered surveys were sent by postal mail to 4229 registered doctors in Hong Kong. The questionnaires for both patients and doctors contained questions on subjects' awareness, acceptance, and perceptions of the PPI-ePR, perceived benefits and obstacles of participating in the program, reasons for not using the system after enrolling, and perceived areas for service improvement of the system.

resultsMore than 53.1% (266/501) of enrolled patients believed that the PPI-ePR system would improve health care quality by reducing duplicate tests and treatments, while more than 76.8% (314/409) of enrolled doctors emphasized timely access to patients' medical records as the biggest benefit of their enrollment. Among nonenrolled patients, unawareness of the project was the most popular obstacle to enrolling in the PPI-ePR system (483/1200, 40.3%). Regarding nonenrolled doctors, the complicated registration process hindered them from participating in the program the most (95/198, 48.0%). Television, newspaper, and magazine advertisements and medical profession newsletters or journals were suggested as the most effective means to encourage participation in the program among surveyed patients (1297/1701, 76.2%) and doctors (428/610, 70.2%), respectively. Lack of clinical indication requiring data extraction from other hospitals was the main reason for low level of PPI-ePR use.

conclusionsThis study comprehensively assessed the popularity, perceived benefits, and hindering factors of enrolling in the PPI-ePR system in Hong Kong. Low levels of awareness, few privacy concerns, and inactive use of the PPI-ePR system were among the key features for patients and physicians. Public promotions, simplified logistics, and a user-friendly online interface were suggested to improve the coverage and effectiveness of health information exchange between private and public health care sectors.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHealth Information ExchangeHumansMalehealth information exchangeonline platformpublic-private partnershipshared electronic health record

Identifiers

PMID32250279
PMCPMC7171565
OpenAlexW3005662303

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.