Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35802397›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Patients' Willingness and Ability to Identify and Respond to Errors in Their Personal Health Records: Mixed Methods Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data.

Rachael Lear, Lisa Freise, Matthew Kybert, Ara Darzi, Ana Luisa Neves, Erik K Mayer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Rachael LearNational Institute for Health Research Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8670-3799
Lisa FreiseNational Institute for Health Research Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3558-0063
Matthew KybertImperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5714-481X
Ara DarziNational Institute for Health Research Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7815-7989
Ana Luisa NevesNational Institute for Health Research Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7107-7211
Erik K MayerNational Institute for Health Research Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5509-4580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundErrors in electronic health records are known to contribute to patient safety incidents; however, systems for checking the accuracy of patient records are almost nonexistent. Personal health records (PHRs) enabling patient access to and interaction with the clinical records offer a valuable opportunity for patients to actively participate in error surveillance.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate patients' willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographical location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured using the eHealth Literacy Scale tool). Patients with experience of using the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. The patients' responses to 4 relevant survey items (closed-ended questions, some with space for free-text comments) were examined to understand their willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify patients' characteristics that predict the ability to understand information in the CIE and willingness to respond to errors in their records. The framework method was used to derive themes from patients' free-text responses.

resultsOf 445 patients, 181 (40.7%) "definitely" understood the CIE information and approximately half (220/445, 49.4%) understood the CIE information "to some extent." Patients with high digital health literacy (eHealth Literacy Scale score ≥26) were more confident in their ability to understand their records compared with patients with low digital health literacy (odds ratio [OR] 7.85, 95% CI 3.04-20.29; P<.001). Information-related barriers (medical terminology and lack of medical guidance or contextual information) and system-related barriers (functionality or usability and information communicated or displayed poorly) were described. Of 445 patients, 79 (17.8%) had noticed errors in their PHRs, which were related to patient demographic details, diagnoses, medical history, results, medications, letters or correspondence, and appointments. Most patients (272/445, 61.1%) wanted to be able to flag up errors to their health professionals for correction; 20.4% (91/445) of the patients were willing to correct errors themselves. Native English speakers were more likely to be willing to flag up errors to health professionals (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.11-10.78; P=.03) or correct errors themselves (OR 5.65, 95% CI 1.33-24.03; P=.02).

conclusionsA large proportion of patients were able and willing to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. However, some barriers persist that disproportionately affect the underserved groups. Further development of PHR systems, including incorporating channels for patient feedback on the accuracy of their records, should address the needs of nonnative English speakers and patients with lower digital health literacy.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyHealth Records, PersonalCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsHumansSurveys and Questionnairesdigital health literacyelectronic health recordserrorspatient participationpatient safetypersonal health records

Identifiers

PMID35802397
PMCPMC9308067

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.