ArticleDigital health
To read or not to read - A cross-sectional study of Swedish primary care patients' adoption of patient accessible electronic health records.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Inequalities in the Use of eHealth Services in European Public Health Care Systems: Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding Patient-Reported Offenses in Electronic Health Records: Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Health Care Professionals' and Patients' Perceptions and Experiences of Who Uses Video Consultations, and Why: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHR) were implemented in the Stockholm region of Sweden seven years ago. This study examines socio-demographic and psychographic factors associated with reading/not reading these records, as well as the common reasons for such behaviours. Methods: Patients or guardians of minors seeking face-to-face or digital primary healthcare in the Stockholm region responded to a questionnaire about whether they were aware that they could read their PAEHR, and if so, if they had read it and reasons for reading or not reading. We conducted a comparative analysis of readers and non-readers and a stepwise multiple logistic regression. Results: The majority of participants were aware that they could read the PAEHR (86%) and among those aware, 77% had read it. The odds of reading decreased with increased age, unfavourable opinion of PAEHR, low information literacy and being single. Access to a smartphone increased the probability of reading. Participants who had read their PAEHR had commonly read it to get an overview of their health and care (65%) and to follow up on a healthcare visit (55%). Participants who had not read their PAEHR stated generally that they did not need to (63%) and/or had received sufficient information from their providers (38%). Conclusions: While most people were aware they could read the PAEHR and many had read it, a digital divide and several barriers to reading the PAEHR were identified. Efforts to increase PAEHR reading may be targeted at older people, people needing more informal support, those who may be excluded due to limited information literacy, and towards improving the patient portals' usability.
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.