ArticleJAMIA open2026
Provider and information technology operations staff perspectives on the feasibility of writing patient-generated health data into the electronic health record.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. 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.
- Perceptions of Chemoprevention Among Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to develop a detailed understanding of provider and Information Technology (IT) operations staff experiences and attitudes regarding patients' ability to edit their data. This includes understanding barriers to developing a process to write back data into the electronic health record (EHR) as well as a concrete set of recommendations on incorporating patient-generated data into the EHR. Materials and Methods: Results: Providers and IT operations staff reported varied knowledge of how patients interact with their data but collectively stated a need for increasing EHR accuracy that prioritizes provider-patient communication. Participants supported a write-back process and had specific suggestions for implementation mechanisms (such as the option to upload test results when submitting changes). Discussion: Providers and IT operations staff maintained that existing data management routes used for external data incorporation should be utilized, and that providers should screen edit requests to ensure EHR quality and accuracy. Conclusion: While participants felt a write-back of patient-derived data would be helpful, future studies should directly assess nursing staff and advanced practice providers as well as patient perspectives to ensure equity and efficacy.
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.