ArticleJMIR mental health2022
Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 2): Focus Group Study.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Health Equity Through Substance Use Medical Record Data Sharing: Insights from Healthcare Providers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Collection and sharing of health information in mental health and related systems in Australia: perspectives of people who access mental health services.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Physicians' Perspectives on HL7 Information Policy Sensitive Value Set: A Validation Study through Health Concept Categorization.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 1): Focus Group Study.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
- Physicians differ in their perceptions of sensitive medical records: Survey and interview study.Health informatics journalArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-directed selection and sharing of health information "granules" is known as granular information sharing. In a previous study, patients with behavioral health conditions categorized their own health information into sensitive categories (eg, mental health) and chose the health professionals (eg, pharmacists) who should have access to those records. Little is known about behavioral health professionals' perspectives of patient-controlled granular information sharing (PC-GIS).
objectiveThis study aimed to assess behavioral health professionals' (1) understanding of and opinions about PC-GIS; (2) accuracy in assessing redacted medical information; (3) reactions to patient rationale for health data categorization, assignment of sensitivity, and sharing choices; and (4) recommendations to improve PC-GIS.
methodsFour 2-hour focus groups and pre- and postsurveys were conducted at 2 facilities. During the focus groups, outcomes from a previous study on patients' choices for medical record sharing were discussed. Thematic analysis was applied to focus group transcripts to address study objectives.
resultsA total of 28 health professionals were recruited. Over half (14/25, 56%) were unaware or provided incorrect definitions of granular information sharing. After PC-GIS was explained, all professionals demonstrated understanding of the terminology and process. Most (26/32 codes, 81%) recognized that key medical data had been redacted from the study case. A majority (41/62 codes, 66%) found the patient rationale for categorization and data sharing choices to be unclear. Finally, education and other approaches to inform and engage patients in granular information sharing were recommended.
conclusionsThis study provides detailed insights from behavioral health professionals on granular information sharing. Outcomes will inform the development, deployment, and evaluation of an electronic consent tool for granular health data sharing.
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.