SynthesisBMJ open2021
Systematic review on the use of patient-held health records in low-income and middle-income countries.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electronic Personal Health Records for Mobile Populations: A Rapid Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- AWaRe antibiotic prescribing for common acute infections in private primary care in low-middle-income countries: a patient-level analysis using IQVIA prescriber surveys from Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and the future of maternal and newborn health in low-income countries: advancing equity, early detection, and health system resilience.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Learning to compress electrocardiogram signals on a quick response code.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Inefficiencies identified in healthcare professional-to-patient handover practices for atrial fibrillation: a mixed-methods study in Brazil, China and Sri Lanka.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Implementation of a Package of Emergency Care Interventions and Clinical Outcomes.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Revisiting the use and effectiveness of patient-held records in rural Malawi.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The Lancet Commission on prostate cancer: planning for the surge in cases.Lancet (London, England) · 2024Review
- Patients', carers' and healthcare providers' views of patient-held health records in Kerala, India: A qualitative exploratory study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Editorial: Digital health quality, acceptability, and cost: steps to effective continuity of cancer care.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Impact of a Personal Health Record Intervention Upon Surveillance Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Feasibility Study.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
- Obstetric shift-to-shift handover in Kerala, India: A cross-sectional mixed method study.PloS one · 2022Article
- A non-fungible token (NFT)-Based framework for antenatal care in resource-constrained settings.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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo review the available evidence on the benefit of patient-held health records (PHRs), other than maternal and child health records, for improving the availability of medical information for handover communication between healthcare providers (HCPs) and/or between HCPs and patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
methodsThe literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL databases for manuscripts without any restrictions on dates/language. Additionally, articles were located through citation checking using previous systematic reviews and a grey literature search by contacting experts, searching of the WHO website and Google Scholar.
resultsSix observational studies in four LMICs met the inclusion criteria. However, no studies reported on health outcomes after using PHRs. Studies in the review reported patients' experience of carrying the records to HCPs (n=3), quality of information available to HCPs (n=1) and the utility of these records to patients (n=6) and HCPs (n=4). Most patients carry PHRs to healthcare visits. One study assessed the completeness of clinical handover information and found that only 41% (161/395) of PHRs were complete with respect to key information on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. No protocols or guidelines for HCPs were reported for use of PHRs. The HCPs perceived the use of PHRs improved medical information availability from other HCPs. From the patient perspective, PHRs functioned as documented source of information about their own condition.
conclusionLimited data on existing PHRs make their benefits for improving health outcomes in LMICs uncertain. This knowledge gap calls for research on understanding the dynamics and outcomes of PHR use by patients and HCPs and in health systems interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139365.
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.