ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Factors Influencing User Satisfaction in Accessing Health Data: Cross-Sectional Survey of United Kingdom Adults.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While patient health records (PHRs) are becoming ubiquitous, nationwide evidence on the drivers of user satisfaction in the United Kingdom remains scarce. Objective: This study aimed to quantify determinants of PHR user satisfaction in a nationally representative sample of United Kingdom adults and to contrast real-world experiences with hypothetical expectations among individuals without PHR exposure. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in March 2022 using stratified quota sampling (eg, age, sex, ethnicity) through the Prolific platform. Of 1001 respondents, 533 (53%) were female (mean age 41, SD13) years, 468 (47%) reported previous PHR use ("experienced" cohort), and 533 (53%) respondents did not ("hypothetical" cohort). Primary outcomes were five satisfaction items (5-point Likert), overall PHR evaluation (0-100), and stated/anticipated PHR functions. Two-sample t-tests with unequal variances examined between-group differences; multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) assessed demographic equivalence. Significance was set at P<.05. Results: Respondents with PHR experience rated their record easy-to-use in 79% (370/468) of cases versus an anticipated 93% (498/533) among nonusers (P<.001). Experienced users rated appointment-scheduling time-saving at 68% (319/468) compared with 72% (387/533) of nonusers (P=.17). Mean overall evaluation scores were 71.0 (SD 19.5) versus 74.2 (SD 18.6) (t₉₉₇=2.25, P=.02). MANOVA confirmed demographic balance (Wilks Λ=.99, F₇,₉₉₃=1.48, P=.18). Preferred functions across cohorts were viewing personal health information (experience 81%, hypothetical 90%) and lab results (50% vs 76%). Users lacking experience consistently over-estimated future use of carer-related functions (eg, children's data: 36% vs 12%, P<.001). Conclusions: Adults in the United Kingdom value PHRs primarily for personal data access and scheduling convenience. Nonusers displayed optimistic expectations about carer-related features and breadth of functionality, indicating an information gap. Enhancing transparency about current capabilities and expanding features that facilitate caregiving could increase satisfaction and adoption.
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.