Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33472257›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2021

Preferred Functions of Personal Health Records in Rural Primary Health Clinics in Canada: Health Care Team Perspectives.

Matthias Görges, Kathy L Rush, Lindsay Burton, Mona Mattei, Selena Davis, Heidi Scott, Mindy A Smith, Leanne M Currie

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Matthias GörgesDepartment of Anesthesiology Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, and Research Institute, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kathy L RushSchool of Nursing, University of British Columbia-Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Lindsay BurtonSchool of Nursing, University of British Columbia-Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Mona MatteiDivision of Family Practice, Kootenay Boundary, Grand Forks, British Columbia, Canada.
Selena DavisDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Heidi ScottPatient Voices Network, British Columbia, Canada.
Mindy A SmithPatient Voices Network, British Columbia, Canada.
Leanne M CurrieSchool of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAMichigan United · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonal health records (PHR) provide opportunities for improved patient engagement, collection of patient-generated data, and overcome health-system inefficiencies. While PHR use is increasing, uptake in rural populations is lower than in urban areas.

objectivesThe study aimed to identify priorities for PHR functionality and gain insights into meaning, value, and use of patient-generated data for rural primary care providers.

methodsWe performed PHR preimplementation focus groups with rural providers and their health care teams from five primary care clinics in a sparsely populated mountainous region of British Columbia, Canada to obtain their understanding of PHR functionality, needs, and perceived challenges.

resultsEight general practitioners (GP), five medical office assistants, two nurse practitioners (NP), and two registered nurses (14 females and 3 males) participated in focus groups held at their respective clinics. Providers (GPs, NPs, and RNs) had been practicing for a median of 9.5 (range = 1-38) years and had used an electronic medical record for 7.0 (1-20) years. Participants expressed interest in incorporating functionality around two-way communication and appointment scheduling, previsit data gathering, patient and provider data sharing, virtual care including visits using videoconferencing tools, and postvisit sharing of educational materials. Three further themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) the context in which the providers' practice matters, (2) the need for providing patients and providers with choice (e.g., which data to share, who gets to initiate/respond in communications, and processes around virtual care visits), and (3) perceived risks of system use (e.g., increased complexity for older patients and workload barriers for the health care team).

conclusionRural primary care teams perceived PHR opportunities for increased patient engagement and access to patient-generated data, while worries about changes in workflow were the biggest perceived risk. Recommendations for PHR adoption in a rural primary health network include setting provider-patient expectations about response times, ability to share notes selectively, and automatically augmented note-taking from virtual-care visits.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalCanadaElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePatient Care Team

Identifiers

PMID33472257
PMCPMC7817336
OpenAlexW3122138750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.