ArticleBMC health services research2025
A patient self-report disability identifier within health service electronic medical records: evaluation of patient, carer and clinician acceptability.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA third of the 5.5 million Australians with a disability require adjustments to access healthcare effectively. Ensuring clinicians have timely information about a patient’s disability and care needs can support more responsive care. Disability Identifiers—brief question sets—offer a practical way to capture this information. However, their use in healthcare remains limited. To address this, a group of clinicians, consumers and researchers from five tertiary and quaternary health services in Victoria, Australia, co-designed and implemented a patient self-report Disability Identifier within Electronic Medical Record systems. This paper presents an evaluation of the acceptability of this intervention among patients, carers, and clinicians.
methodsThe Disability Identifier questions were integrated into Electronic Medical Record systems across the five health services in March 2023, with the evaluation period spanning the first nine months of implementation (1st March–30th November 2023). Using a mixed methods convergent parallel design and guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, we conducted online surveys, interviews, and focus groups with patients, carers, and clinicians. Data analysis explored perspectives and experiences across eight constructs: general acceptability, affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, self-efficacy, and perceived effectiveness.
resultsSurvey results indicated strong acceptability of the Disability Identifier questions. Interviews with patients and carers reflected generally positive perceptions of the intervention, with many noting that it signalled a commitment by health services to improve care for people with disability. Clinicians emphasised that, with adequate training and resources, this intervention could raise awareness about disability and contribute towards disability-responsive care.
conclusionsIntegrating patient self-reported Disability Identifiers into EMR systems marks a critical step toward improving disability-responsive healthcare. Building trust in Disability Identifiers requires clear communication about their purpose, benefits, and role in improving care while also addressing disability awareness and discrimination in healthcare settings. While continuous evaluation of their use and impact on patient experiences and outcomes is recommended, this research lays the foundation for other jurisdictions to adopt a standardized approach to integrating Disability Identifiers into health data systems. Ultimately, effective use of patient self-report Disability Identifiers has the potential to promote more equitable health outcomes for people with disability.
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.