Literature DB >> 8168677

Patient and general practitioner perceptions of patient-held health records.

S T Liaw1.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to describe the attitudes of general practitioners (GPs) and their patients to patient-held health records (PHR). The study was set in a general practice in South Australia. It consisted of a descriptive study using a mail questionnaire. A stratified random sample, based on socioeconomic indicators for areas in South Australia, of GPs (n = 315) and their patients (n = 500) was used. The indices for contents, problems and benefits of the PHR showed adequate internal consistency and reliability. Patients mostly perceived the PHR as a personal document for reference while GPs perceived it as a management and communication tool. The solo GP who scored high on the 'PHR benefits' and low on the 'PHR problems' indices, and doubted that GPs were influential in changing patient behaviour would let patients keep full copies of their records. The younger female rural GP who scored high on the 'PHR benefits' and low on the 'PHR problems' indices favoured a patient summary. The more entrepreneurial GPs who scored high on both the 'PHR benefits' and 'PHR problems' indices favoured a 'censored summary'. Awareness of smart cards was high and opinions on their use guarded. It was concluded that patients and doctors have different attitudes to and expectations of PHRs. Significant sociodemographic, educational and attitude correlations with PHRs were found. The 'PHR benefits' and 'PHR problems' indices were consistent, useful and may have a wider applicability in quantifying the opinion of patients and providers before implementing PHR programmes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8168677     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/10.4.406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  8 in total

1.  Attitudes towards, and utility of, an integrated medical-dental patient-held record in primary care.

Authors:  R Jones; J McConville; D Mason; L Macpherson; L Naven; J McEwen
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate the use of patient held records for the continuing care of patients with cancer.

Authors:  J G Williams; W Y Cheung; N Chetwynd; D R Cohen; S El-Sharkawi; I Finlay; B Lervy; M Longo; K Malinovszky
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

Review 3.  The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review.

Authors:  Stephen E Ross; Chen-Tan Lin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 4.  Patient perspectives of medical confidentiality: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Pamela Sankar; Susan Mora; Jon F Merz; Nora L Jones
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: patient and physician experiences.

Authors:  Mark A Earnest; Stephen E Ross; Loretta Wittevrongel; Laurie A Moore; Chen-Tan Lin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2004-06-07       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  A research agenda for personal health records (PHRs).

Authors:  David C Kaelber; Ashish K Jha; Douglas Johnston; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  A cluster randomised controlled trial of patient-held medical records for people with schizophrenia receiving shared care.

Authors:  Helen Lester; Teresa Allan; Sue Wilson; Sue Jowett; Lesley Roberts
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Improving quality of care and long-term health outcomes through continuity of care with the use of an electronic or paper patient-held portable health file (COMMUNICATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marissa Nichole Lassere; Sue Baker; Andrew Parle; Anthony Sara; Kent Robert Johnson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.