ArticleBMJ open2021
A qualitative exploration of patients' experiences, needs and expectations regarding online access to their primary care record.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and national roll-out of the NHS App in England.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Patient Online Record Access in English Primary Care: Qualitative Survey Study of General Practitioners' Views.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Unintended consequences of patient online access to health records: a qualitative study in UK primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Implications of the changes to patient online records access in English primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Patient empowerment through online access to health records.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- What do primary care staff think about patients accessing electronic health records? A focus group study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The person-based development and realist evaluation of a summary report for GP consultations [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].NIHR open research · 2022Article
- Affordance trajectories and the usefulness of online records access among older adults in Sweden.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrimary care records have traditionally served the needs and demands of clinicians rather than those of the patient. In England, general practices must promote and offer registered patients online access to their primary care record, and research has shown benefits to both patients and clinicians of doing so. Despite this, we know little about patients' needs and expectations regarding online access to their record. This study explored what patients and carers want from online access to their electronic primary care health record, their experiences of using it, how they would like to interact with their record and what support they may need.
designFocus groups and semistructured interviews using purposive sampling to achieve a good sociodemographic spread. Interviews were digitally audiorecorded, transcribed and coded using an established thematic approach.
settingFocus groups and interviews were conducted in community settings in the UK.
participantsFifty-four individuals who were either eligible for the National Health Service Health Check, living with more than one long-term condition or caring for someone else.
resultsParticipants views regarding online access were categorised into four main themes: awareness, capabilities, consequences and inevitability. Participants felt online access should be better promoted, and suggested a number of additional functions, such as better integration with other parts of the healthcare system. It was felt that online access could improve quality of care (eg, through increased transparency) but also have potential negative consequences (eg, by replacing face to face contact). A move towards more online records access was considered inevitable, but participants noted a need for additional support and training in using the online record, especially to ensure that health inequalities are not exacerbated.
conclusionsDiscussions with patients and carers about their views of accessing online records have provided useful insights into future directions and potential improvements for this service.
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.