ArticlePEC innovation2024
How often are patients recording their healthcare consultations in Australia and why? An online survey.
Article in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Recording important healthcare consultations can benefit patients. Technological developments enable recordings by patients and health professionals, as well as real-time 'listening' by AI scribes. Not enough is known about whether and why patients record their consultations. Objective: To investigate people's experiences and preferences regarding consultation recording in Australia. Methods: A 21-item online survey available for all Australians aged 18+ was distributed via social media and professional networks in 2022. Items explored recording behaviour (past and planned), and reasons for recording and sharing. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively; qualitative content analysis was used to analyse open-text items. Results: A total of 486 responses were received, of which 236 responses were analysed. Of these, 26 % had openly recorded a healthcare consultation, and 15 % had recorded covertly. The majority (71 %) of participants would consider recording a visit and would like their clinic to allow this (56 %). Participants strongly opposed the idea of sharing a recording on social media (84 %). Open-text responses indicated participants valued the health professional's consent, and protecting their own privacy by not oversharing recordings. Conclusion: Recording of consultations in Australia is common, usually to enhance patients' knowledge, understanding, and participation in their care. Patients value the possibility of recording, especially when they are experiencing vulnerability. Recording can help people navigate the impacts of disability and barriers to information access. Privacy and fairness remain paramount. Innovation: This is the first survey of recording practices in Australia and is highly-relevant given recent technological developments. The findings indicate that changes in policy, law and technologies themselves are needed, to clarify parties' rights and responsibilities and to ensure the benefits of consultation recording are realised.
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.