Trial reportApplied clinical informatics2022
Effect of Notes' Access and Complexity on OpenNotes' Utility.
Trial report in Applied clinical informatics, 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.
- Evaluating a web-based personalized decision report for total knee or hip replacement: Lessons learned from patients.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2023Trial
- Article
- MedReadCtrl: Personalizing medical text generation with readability-controlled instruction learning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- README: Bridging Medical Jargon and Lay Understanding for Patient Education through Data-Centric NLP.Findings of ACL. EMNLP. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2024Article
- For Whom the Note Scrolls: A Brief History of the Medical Record's Role in Education and the Risks It Faces in the Age of OpenNotes.Neurology. Education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth care providers are now required to provide their patients access to their consultation and progress notes. Early research of this concept, known as "OpenNotes," showed promising results in terms of provider acceptability and patient adoption, yet objective evaluations relating to patients' interactions with the notes are limited.
objectivesTo assess the effect of the complexity level of notes and number of accesses (initial read vs. continuous access) on the user's performance, perceived usability, cognitive workload, and satisfaction with the notes.
methodsWe used a 2*2 mixed subjects experimental design with two independent variables: (1) note's complexity at two levels (
resultsPerformance for understanding was significantly better in simple versus complex notes with continuous access (
conclusionSimplifying notes can improve understanding of notes for patients/families. However, perceived usability, cognitive workload, and satisfaction with even the simplified notes were still low. To make notes more useful for patients and their families, there is a need for dramatic improvements to the overall usability and content of the notes.
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.