Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38559581›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Open notes in psychotherapy: An exploratory mixed methods survey of psychotherapy students in Switzerland.

Anna Kharko, Sarah Buergler, Annika Bärkås, Maria Hägglund, Jens Gaab, Asbjørn Johansen Fagerlund, Cosima Locher, Charlotte Blease

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Anna KharkoDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-6173
Sarah BuerglerDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Annika BärkåsDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Maria HägglundDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jens GaabDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Asbjørn Johansen FagerlundDigital Health Services, Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, Tromsø, Norway.
Cosima LocherDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Charlotte BleaseDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as "open notes"). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes. Objective: This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients' access to psychotherapists' free-text summaries. Methods: We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions. Results: Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches. Conclusions: Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice.

Indexed as

autonomyclinical psychologyelectronic health recordshealthcare ethicsinformed consentonline record accessOpen notespatient-centered carepsychotherapyqualitative surveysurvey

Identifiers

PMID38559581
PMCPMC10981219

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.