ReviewHealth policy and technology2024
Perspectives on access to imaging digital health records in oncology: A mixed methods systematic review.
Review in Health policy and technology, 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.
- Improving patient understanding of oncology imaging: radiologist and patient evaluation of summarised versus full-length AI-simplified reports from a tertiary cancer centre.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital Health Records (DHR) have become essential for managing patient data, including radiology and nuclear medicine reports. The wider adoption of DHR globally presents an opportunity to improve patient engagement and empowerment through effective access and sharing of imaging investigations. This review aims to synthesize literature on views, experiences, expectations, and preferences of oncology patients and healthcare professionals (HCP) when accessing imaging via DHR. Materials and Methods: This review was conducted using recommended Cochrane Handbook databases (registration: CRD42021213808), focusing on English articles published from 2000 onwards. Three experienced reviewers critically appraised selected articles, thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were used to extract data. Results: 493 unique articles were identified, with 451 excluded, resulting in 42 articles assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included, eight from the USA, one from Canada, published between 2010 and 2020. Findings suggest patient portals can positively impact patient and HCP engagement, and patients desire access to their imaging reports. Factors such as timing of access, adequate consultation time, resources for HCP to discuss findings, and format of information are critical considerations that influence both patient and HCP perceptions and preferences. Conclusion: Oncology patients want timely and understandable access to their imaging records. To ensure this, it is crucial to explore the appropriate timing, format, and methods to discuss these findings with patients. By involving all stakeholders in the planning process, we can develop DHR systems that provide personalised support for patients to manage their complex imaging results.
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.