ArticleBMJ open2024
Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Providing Mobile Patient Access to Their Electronic Secondary Care Patient Record in Adults With Cystic Fibrosis: Results of a Prospective, Parallel, Randomized Open-Pilot Quantitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Trial
- Ambient scribes in general practice - help or hindrance?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Ambient AI in primary care: an exploratory mixed methods survey of UK general practitioners.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Balancing efficiency and misinterpretation: general practitioners' perspectives on communicating diagnostic test results in the digital era.Family practice · 2025Article
- Using Real Electronic Health Records in Undergraduate Education: Roundtable Discussion.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Prevalence and types of errors in the electronic health record: protocol for a mixed systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on Implementing Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records in Primary Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Adolescent and parental proxy online record access: analysis of the empirical evidence based on four bioethical principles.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in medicine: a mixed-methods survey of UK general practitioners.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Open notes in psychotherapy: An exploratory mixed methods survey of psychotherapy students in Switzerland.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the experiences and opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in England regarding patients having access to their full online GP health records.
designConvenience sample, online survey.
participants400 registered GPs in England.
main outcome measuresInvestigators measured GPs' experiences and opinions about online record access (ORA), including patient care and their practice.
resultsA total of 400 GPs from all regions of England responded. A minority (130, 33%) believed ORA was a good idea. Most GPs believed a majority of patients would worry more (364, 91%) or find their GP records more confusing than helpful (338, 85%). Most GPs believed a majority of patients would find significant errors in their records (240, 60%), would better remember their care plan (280, 70%) and feel more in control of their care (243, 60%). The majority believed they will/already spend more time addressing patients' questions outside of consultations (357, 89%), that consultations will/already take significantly longer (322, 81%) and that they will be/already are less candid in their documentation (289, 72%) after ORA. Nearly two-thirds of GPs believed ORA would increase their litigation (246, 62%).
conclusionsSimilar to clinicians in other countries, GPs in our sample were sceptical of ORA, believing patients would worry more and find their records more confusing than helpful. Most GPs also believed the practice would exacerbate work burdens. However, the majority of GPs in this survey also agreed there were multiple benefits to patients having online access to their primary care health records. The findings of this survey also contribute to a growing body of contrastive research from countries where ORA is advanced, demonstrating clinicians are sceptical while studies indicate patients appear to derive multiple benefits.
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.