ArticleBMC primary care2025
Determining implementation issues of open notes in primary care: a focus group study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn several countries, patients have online access to medical records (open notes) contributing to patient engagement and healthcare outcomes. However, usage is still low. Healthcare professionals' viewpoints on open notes are under-represented in existing reviews. And a systematic framework to understand the implementation is lacking. Using the 'capability approach', we evaluated the value of open notes by examining influencing factors and capabilities (opportunities and challenges) of patients and staff in general practices.
methodQualitative research was conducted in 10 Dutch general practices (19 healthcare professionals and 29 patients) that were included through purposive sampling aiming at a diversity of practices and patients. Three focus groups were held with primary care staff and 10 with patients, led by an experienced facilitator using a topic guide. Content analysis was used for the transcripts of the focus groups; coded in ATLAS.ti in three rounds by two researchers independently. The results were discussed with the research team to identify factors and capabilities that could affect the usability of open notes.
resultsPersonal, social, and environmental factors appeared to influence the use of open notes, such as digital and health literacy, social support from and within the practice, and legislation and regulation. Patients and healthcare professionals agreed on most of these factors. From the capabilities, four implementation themes were identified. First, ambiguity about ownership of medical records and concerns about data integrity should be addressed. Second, the change in practice organization and the care process caused by open notes need practical support. Third, fear of the unknown and unintended consequences of open notes must be considered. Fourth, the introduced change to the healthcare professional-patient relationship requires additional skills. These themes applied to both patients and healthcare professionals, but the differences became clear in the details.
conclusionThe study provides insight into how patients and healthcare professionals experience open notes. Besides the practical barriers and facilitators, patients and healthcare professionals addressed four implementation themes that should guide the further implementation of open notes to improve patient engagement and health outcomes.
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.