Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34904956›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2021

Sharing Clinical Notes and Electronic Health Records With People Affected by Mental Health Conditions: Scoping Review.

Julian Schwarz, Annika Bärkås, Charlotte Blease, Lorna Collins, Maria Hägglund, Sarah Markham, Stefan Hochwarter

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
23.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Julian Schwarz *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Immanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-7909
Annika Bärkås *Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1209-7714
Charlotte BleaseGeneral Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0205-1165
Lorna CollinsSocial Science Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0901-4033
Maria HägglundDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6839-3651
Sarah MarkhamDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8755-5935
Stefan HochwarterCenter for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2652-135X
Uppsala University · SEBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USKing's College London · GBMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane · DENorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly implemented internationally, whereas digital sharing of EHRs with service users (SUs) is a relatively new practice. Studies of patient-accessible EHRs (PAEHRs)-often referred to as open notes-have revealed promising results within general medicine settings. However, studies carried out in mental health care (MHC) settings highlight several ethical and practical challenges that require further exploration.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to map available evidence on PAEHRs in MHC. We seek to relate findings with research from other health contexts, to compare different stakeholders' perspectives, expectations, actual experiences with PAEHRs, and identify potential research gaps.

methodsA systematic scoping review was performed using 6 electronic databases. Studies that focused on the digital sharing of clinical notes or EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions up to September 2021 were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews guided narrative synthesis and reporting of findings.

resultsOf the 1034 papers screened, 31 were included in this review. The studies used mostly qualitative methods or surveys and were predominantly published after 2018 in the United States. PAEHRs were examined in outpatient (n=29) and inpatient settings (n=11), and a third of all research was conducted in Veterans Affairs Mental Health. Narrative synthesis allowed the integration of findings according to the different stakeholders. First, SUs reported mainly positive experiences with PAEHRs, such as increased trust in their clinician, health literacy, and empowerment. Negative experiences were related to inaccurate notes, disrespectful language use, or uncovering of undiscussed diagnoses. Second, for health care professionals, concerns outweigh the benefits of sharing EHRs, including an increased clinical burden owing to more documentation efforts and possible harm triggered by reading the notes. Third, care partners gained a better understanding of their family members' mental problems and were able to better support them when they had access to their EHR. Finally, policy stakeholders and experts addressed ethical challenges and recommended the development of guidelines and trainings to better prepare both clinicians and SUs on how to write and read notes.

conclusionsPAEHRs in MHC may strengthen user involvement, patients' autonomy, and shift medical treatment to a coproduced process. Acceptance issues among health care professionals align with the findings from general health settings. However, the corpus of evidence on digital sharing of EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions is limited. Above all, further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and implementation of this sociotechnical intervention.

Indexed as

collaborative health carecoproductionelectronic health recordhealth care reformopen notesparticipationpatient advocacypatient portalpatient rightssystem transformationuser involvement

Identifiers

PMID34904956
PMCPMC8715358
OpenAlexW3210534365

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.