ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Adoption of a Digital Patient Health Passport as Part of a Primary Healthcare Service Delivery: Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Safety Events Among People from Ethnic Minority Backgrounds: A Retrospective Medical Record Review of Australian Cancer Services.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- The Journey to Autonomy: Understanding Parental Concerns During the Transition of Children with Chronic Digestive Disorders.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Provision of Digital Primary Health Care Services: Overview of Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Review
- Discursive framework for a multi-disease digital health passport in Africa: a perspective.Globalization and health · 2024Review
- Service Quality and Related Factors in Primary Health Care Services: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Transitions from child and adolescent to adult mental health services for eating disorders: an in-depth systematic review and development of a transition framework.Journal of eating disorders · 2024Review
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues: Contributions from 2022.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
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
The utilization of digital personal health records is considered to be appropriate for present-time usage; it is expected to further enhance primary care's quality-of-service delivery. Despite numerous studies conducted on digital personal health records, efforts in a systematic evaluation of the topic have failed to establish the specific benefits gained by patients, health providers, and healthcare systems. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review regarding the impact of digital personal health records in relation to the delivery of primary care. The review methods included five methodological elements that were directed by the review protocol 2020 (PRISMA). Over a time period of 10 years (2011-2021), 2492 articles were retrieved from various established databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCO-Medline, and Google Scholar, and based on reference mining. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal. A thematic analysis was performed to develop the themes in this study. The thematic analysis performed on 13 articles resulted in seven main themes, which were empowering the patient, helping with communication, improving relationships, improving the quality of care, maintaining health records, sharing records, and saving time. We concluded the study by expanding the seven themes into 26 sub-themes, of which each served as answers to our main research question that prompted this systematic review.
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.