ArticleJAMIA open2026
Beyond fax: provider perspectives on data sharing in substance use disorder care.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Substance use disorder (SUD) care continues to be hindered by persistent gaps in health information exchange (HIE). This study examined people, organizational, regulatory, and technical barriers to SUD data sharing from the provider perspective and identified key opportunities to improve care through health record interoperability. Materials and Methods: Behavioral health providers (52% prescribers) representing 4 SUD treatment organizations in 14 US states participated in 11 focus groups ( Results: Incomplete data access at the point of care frequently necessitated manual exchange via fax, phone, and secure email. When available, HIE and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data were helpful, but confusion regarding the release of SUD information requirements in the context of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), 42 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 2 and state requirements was ubiquitous. UML modeling of 4 core SUD care scenarios rising from participants' HEDIS examples revealed 3 common data sharing subprocesses. Discussion: Fragmented data sharing workflows, and extensive use of non-electronic data sharing methods impact outcomes for individuals with SUD. Interoperable consent management, HIE and PDMP integration with EHRs, and harmonized privacy regulations are provider priorities. Conclusion: Mapping provider-identified barriers reveals technical, regulatory, and workflow breakdowns that limit SUD care coordination. Advancing electronic, consent-driven interoperability employing standards is critical to improving continuity of care while safeguarding patient privacy.
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.