Mapping Patients' Online Record Access Worldwide: Preliminary Results from an International Survey of Healthcare Experts.

While research on the effects of patient access to health records is increasing, a basic understanding of the spread of patient-accessible electronic health records worldwide is lacking. In this survey of healthcare experts with professional and personal experience from 29 countries, we explored the state of patient online record access (ORA). We asked participants whether ORA exists in their country and which information is available through it. Experts in all polled countries reported having some national access to health records, with 6 (21%) countries providing exclusively paper-based records and 23 (79%) countries having ORA. Overview of test/lab results and prescription/medication lists were the most commonly available information. Free-text clinical notes were accessible in less than half of the surveyed countries (12, 41%). We will continue to map the state of patient ORA, focusing on traditionally underrepresented countries.

Suitability of issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed method study of GPs' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To explore Norwegian GPs' experiences with and perceived suitability of issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We used a mixed methods research design. An online survey with 301 respondents was combined with qualitative interviews with ten GPs. SETTING: Norwegian general practice. RESULTS: Most GPs agreed it was difficult to assess a patient's ability to work without physical attendance for a first-time certification in remote consultations. However, extending a certification was considered less problematic. If physical examinations were required, the GPs would ask the patient to come to the office. The most suitable diagnoses for remote certification were respiratory infections and COVID-19-related diagnoses, as well as known chronic and long-term diseases. The GPs emphasized the importance of knowing both the patient and the medical problem. The GP-patient relationship could be affected by remote consultations, and there were mixed views on the impact. Many GPs found it easier to deny a request for a sickness certification in remote consultations. The GPs expressed concern about the societal costs and an increased number of certifications if remote consultations were too easily accessible. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the findings should be interpreted in that context. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations were viewed to be suitable for COVID-19 related problems, for patients the GP has met before, for the follow-up of known medical problems, and the extension of sickness certifications. Not meeting the patient face-to-face may affect the GP-patient relationship as well as make the GPs' dual role more challenging.

KEY POINTSThe GPs perceived issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations as suitable when patient and health problem are known, and when the certification is an extension.Issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations can both harm and strengthen the GP-patient relationship.The GPs were aware of their social responsibility and were concerned that issuing sickness certificates in remote consultations can change their sick-listing practice.

Benchmarking usability of patient portals in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Poor usability is a barrier to widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHR). Providing good usability is especially challenging in the health care context, as there is a wide variety of patient users. Usability benchmarking is an approach for improving usability by evaluating and comparing the strength and weaknesses of systems. The main purpose of this study is to benchmark usability of patient portals across countries. METHODS: A mixed-methods survey approach was applied to benchmark the national patient portals offering patient access to EHR in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. These Nordic countries have similar public healthcare systems, and they are pioneers in offering patients access to EHR for several years. In a survey of 29,334 patients, both patients' quantitative ratings of usability and their qualitative descriptions of very positive and very negative peak experiences of portal use were collected. RESULTS: The usability scores ranged from good to fair level of usability. The narratives of very positive and very negative experiences included the benefits of the patient portals and experienced usability issues. The regression analysis of results showed that very positive and negative experiences of patient portal use explain 19-35% of the variation of usability scores in the four countries. The percentage of patients who reported very positive or very negative experiences in each country was unrelated to the usability scores across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The survey approach could be used to evaluate usability with a wide variety of users and it supported learning from comparison across the countries. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data provided an approximation of the level of the perceived usability, and identified usability issues to be improved and useful features that patients appreciate. Further work is needed to improve the comparability of the varied samples across countries.

Users' Experiences With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Mental and Somatic Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) hold promise for empowering patients, but their impact may vary between mental and somatic health care. Medical professionals and ethicists have expressed concerns about the potential challenges of PAEHRs for patients, especially those receiving mental health care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate variations in the experiences of online access to electronic health records (EHRs) among persons receiving mental and somatic health care, as well as to understand how these experiences and perceptions vary among those receiving mental health care at different levels of point of care. METHODS: Using Norwegian data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of service use and perceptions of perceived mistakes, omissions, and offensive comments by mental and somatic health care respondents. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses to understand how respondents experienced the most serious errors in their EHR. RESULTS: Among 9505 survey participants, we identified 2008 mental health care respondents and 7086 somatic health care respondents. A higher percentage of mental health care respondents (1385/2008, 68.97%) reported that using PAEHR increased their trust in health care professionals compared with somatic health care respondents (4251/7086, 59.99%). However, a significantly larger proportion (P<.001) of mental health care respondents (976/2008, 48.61%) reported perceiving errors in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents (1893/7086, 26.71%). Mental health care respondents also reported significantly higher odds (P<.001) of identifying omissions (758/2008, 37.75%) and offensive comments (729/2008, 36.3%) in their EHR compared with the somatic health care group (1867/7086, 26.35% and 826/7086, 11.66%, respectively). Mental health care respondents in hospital inpatient settings were more likely to identify errors (398/588, 67.7%; P<.001) and omissions (251/588, 42.7%; P<.001) than those in outpatient care (errors: 422/837, 50.4% and omissions: 336/837, 40.1%; P<.001) and primary care (errors: 32/100, 32% and omissions: 29/100, 29%; P<.001). Hospital inpatients also reported feeling more offended (344/588, 58.5%; P<.001) by certain content in their EHR compared with respondents in primary (21/100, 21%) and outpatient care (287/837, 34.3%) settings. Our qualitative findings showed that both mental and somatic health care respondents identified the most serious errors in their EHR in terms of medical history, communication, diagnosis, and medication. CONCLUSIONS: Most mental and somatic health care respondents showed a positive attitude toward PAEHRs. However, mental health care respondents, especially those with severe and chronic concerns, expressed a more critical attitude toward certain content in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents. A PAEHR can provide valuable information and foster trust, but it requires careful attention to the use of clinical terminology to ensure accurate, nonjudgmental documentation, especially for persons belonging to health care groups with unique sensitivities.

The NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey: Cross-Sectional Study of National Patient Portal Users in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia.

BACKGROUND: Although many surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited amount of nationwide cross-country data available on patients' views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project, NORDeHEALTH. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of patients who accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed using the national online health portals. The target participants were patients who accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022 and who were aged ≥15 years. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant sociodemographics, usability experience, experiences with health care and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offense, opinions about security and privacy, and the usefulness of portal functions. In this paper, we summarized the data on participant demographics, past experience with health care, and the patient portal through descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9503 (32.40%) were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4713 (16.07%) from Finland, and 2104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with about two-thirds identifying as women (19,904/29,302, 67.93%). Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had older users while Estonia had younger users. The highest attained education and presence of health care education varied among the national samples. In all 4 countries, patients most commonly rated their health as "fair" (11,279/29,302, 38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, whereas Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, most patients received some care in the last 2 years (25,318/29,254, 86.55%). Mental health care was more common (6214/29,254, 21.24%) than oncological care (3664/29,254, 12.52%). Overall, most patients had accessed their health record "2 to 9 times" (11,546/29,306, 39.4%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where about one-third of patients accessed it "more than 20 times" (4571/13,008, 35.14%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users' sociodemographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. Although the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue to investigate patients' experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined data sets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey.

Errors, Omissions, and Offenses in the Health Record of Mental Health Care Patients: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Previous research reports that patients with mental health conditions experience benefits, for example, increased empowerment and validation, from reading their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). In mental health care (MHC), PAEHRs remain controversial, as health care professionals are concerned that patients may feel worried or offended by the content of the notes. Moreover, existing research has focused on specific mental health diagnoses, excluding the larger PAEHR userbase with experience in MHC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to establish if and how the experiences of patients with and those without MHC differ in using their PAEHRs by (1) comparing patient characteristics and differences in using the national patient portal between the 2 groups and (2) establishing group differences in the prevalence of negative experiences, for example, rates of errors, omissions, and offenses between the 2 groups. METHODS: Our analysis was performed on data from an online patient survey distributed through the Swedish national patient portal as part of our international research project, NORDeHEALTH. The respondents were patient users of the national patient portal 1177, aged 15 years or older, and categorized either as those with MHC experience or with any other health care experience (nonmental health care [non-MHC]). Patient characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, and health status were gathered. Portal use characteristics included frequency of access, encouragement to read the record, and instances of positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were further explored through rates of error, omission, and offense. The data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Group differences were analyzed through Pearson chi-square. RESULTS: Of the total sample (N=12,334), MHC respondents (n=3131) experienced errors (1586/3131, 50.65%, and non-MHC 3311/9203, 35.98%), omissions (1089/3131, 34.78%, and non-MHC 2427/9203, 26.37%) and offenses (1183/3131, 37.78%, and non-MHC 1616/9203, 17.56%) in the electronic health record at a higher rate than non-MHC respondents (n=9203). Respondents reported that the identified error (MHC 795/3131, 50.13%, and non-MHC 1366/9203, 41.26%) and omission (MHC 622/3131, 57.12%, and non-MHC 1329/9203, 54.76%) were "very important," but most did nothing to correct them (MHC 792/3131, 41.29%, and non-MHC 1838/9203, 42.17%). Most of the respondents identified as women in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: About 1 in 2 MHC patients identified an error in the record, and about 1 in 3 identified an omission, both at a much higher rate than in the non-MHC group. Patients with MHC also felt offended by the content of the notes more commonly (1 in 3 vs 1 in 6). These findings validate some of the worries expressed by health care professionals about providing patients with MHC with PAEHRs and highlight challenges with the documentation quality in the records.

Patients' Experiences of a National Patient Portal and Its Usability: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals not only provide patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) and other digital health services, such as prescription renewals, but they can also improve patients' self-management, engagement with health care professionals (HCPs), and care processes. However, these benefits depend on patients' willingness to use patient portals and, ultimately, their experiences with the usefulness and ease of use of the portals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the perceived usability of a national patient portal and the relationship of patients' very positive and very negative experiences with perceived usability. The study was aimed to be the first step in developing an approach for benchmarking the usability of patient portals in different countries. METHODS: Data were collected through a web-based survey of the My Kanta patient portal's logged-in patient users in Finland from January 24, 2022, to February 14, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate the usability of the patient portal, and the ratings were used to calculate approximations of the System Usability Scale (SUS) score. Open-ended questions asked the patients about their positive and negative experiences with the patient portal. The statistical analysis included multivariate regression, and the experience narratives were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1,262,708 logged-in patient users, 4719 responded to the survey, giving a response rate of 0.37%. The patient portal's usability was rated as good, with a mean SUS score of 74.3 (SD 14.0). Reporting a very positive experience with the portal was positively associated with perceived usability (ß=.51; P<.001), whereas reporting a very negative experience was negatively associated with perceived usability (ß=-1.28; P<.001). These variables explained 23% of the variation in perceived usability. The information provided and a lack of information were the most common positive and negative experiences. Furthermore, specific functionalities, such as prescription renewal and the ease of using the patient portal, were often mentioned as very positive experiences. The patients also mentioned negative emotions, such as anger and frustration, as part of their very negative experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The study offers empirical evidence about the significant role of individual experiences when patients are evaluating the usability of patient portals. The results suggest that positive and negative experiences provide relevant information that can be used for improving the patient portal's usability. Usability should be improved so that patients receive information efficiently, easily, and quickly. Respondents would also appreciate interactive features in the patient portal.

mHealth interventions to reduce maternal and child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia: A systematic literature review.

Background: Reducing maternal mortality, neonatal mortality and under 5-year mortality are important targets addressed by the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Despite studies reported an improvement in maternal and child health indicators, the progress achieved is not uniform across regions. Due to the increasing availability of mobile phones in low and middle-income countries, mHealth could impact considerably on reducing maternal and child mortality and maximizing women's access to quality care, from the antenatal stage to the post-natal period. Methods: A systematic literature review of mHealth interventions aimed at reducing maternal and child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. Primary outcomes were maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, and under-five mortality. Secondary outcomes were skilled birth attendance, antenatal care (ANC) and post-natal care (PNC) attendance, and vaccination/immunization coverage. We searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2020 in Embase, Medline and Web of Science. Quantitative comparative studies were included. The protocol was developed according to the PRISMA Checklist and published in PROSPERO [CRD42019109434]. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to assess the quality of the eligible studies. Results: 23 studies were included in the review, 16 undertaken in Sub-Saharan Africa and 7 in Southern Asia. Most studies used SMS or voice message reminders for education purposes. Only two studies reported outcomes on neonatal mortality, with positive results. None of the studies reported results on maternal mortality or under-five mortality. Outcomes on skilled birth attendance, ANC attendance, PNC attendance, and vaccination coverage were reported in six, six, five, and eleven studies, respectively. Most of these studies showed a positive impact of mHealth interventions on the secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Simple mHealth educational interventions based on SMS and voice message reminders are effective at supporting behavior change of pregnant women and training of health workers, thus improving ANC and PNC attendance, vaccination coverage and skilled birth attendance. Higher quality studies addressing the role of mHealth in reducing maternal and child mortality in resource-limited settings are needed, especially in Southern Asia. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019109434, identifier CRD42019109434.

Impact on patient-provider relationship and documentation practices when mental health patients access their electronic health records online: a qualitative study among health professionals in an outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHR) hold the potential to increase patient empowerment, especially for patients with complex, long-term or chronic conditions. However, evidence of its benefits for patients who undergo mental health treatment is unclear and inconsistent, and several concerns towards use of PAEHR emerged among health professionals. This study aimed at exploring the impact of PAEHR among mental health professionals in terms of patient-provider relationship, changes in the way of writing in the electronic health records and reasons for denying access to information. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews with health professionals working in two mental health outpatient clinics at Helgelandssykehuset in Northern Norway, one of the first hospitals in Norway to implement the PAEHR in 2015. The interviews were conducted by phone or videoconferencing, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary research team using the Framework Method. RESULTS: A total of 16 in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted in April and May 2020. The PAEHR implemented in Norway was seen as a tool to increase transparency and improve the patient-provider relationship. The PAEHR was seen to have negative consequences only in limited situations, such as for patients with severe mental conditions, for child protective services when parents access their children's journal, or for patients with abusive partners. The functionality to deny access to the journal was used rarely. A more common practice for making information not immediately available was to delay the final approval of the notes. The documentation practices changed over the years, but it was not clear to what extent the changes were attributable to the introduction of the PAEHR. Health professionals write their notes keeping in mind that patients might read them, and they try to avoid unclear language, information about third parties, and hypotheses that might create confusion. CONCLUSIONS: The concerns voiced by mental health professionals regarding the impact of the PAEHR on the patient-provider relationship and practices to deny access to information were not supported by the results of this study. Future research should explore changes in documentation practices by analysing the content of the electronic health records.

Patients' Experiences of Web-Based Access to Electronic Health Records in Finland: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals that provide access to electronic health records offer a means for patients to better understand and self-manage their health. Yet, patient access to electronic health records raises many concerns among physicians, and little is known about the use practices and experiences of patients who access their electronic health records via a mature patient portal that has been available for citizens for over five years. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify patients' experiences using a national patient portal to access their electronic health records. In particular, we focused on understanding usability-related perceptions and the benefits and challenges of reading clinical notes written by health care professionals. METHODS: Data were collected from 3135 patient users of the Finnish My Kanta patient portal through a web-based survey in June 2021 (response rate: 0.7%). Patients received an invitation to complete the questionnaire when they logged out of the patient portal. Respondents were asked to rate the usability of the patient portal, and the ratings were used to calculate approximations of the System Usability Scale score. Patients were also asked about the usefulness of features, and whether they had discussed the notes with health professionals. Open-ended questions were used to ask patients about their experiences of the benefits and challenges related to reading health professionals' notes. RESULTS: Overall, patient evaluations of My Kanta were positive, and its usability was rated as good (System Usability Scale score approximation: mean 72.7, SD 15.9). Patients found the portal to be the most useful for managing prescriptions and viewing the results of examinations and medical notes. Viewing notes was the most frequent reason (978/3135, 31.2%) for visiting the portal. Benefits of reading the notes mentioned by patients included remembering and understanding what was said by health professionals and the instructions given during an appointment, the convenience of receiving information about health and care, the capability to check the accuracy of notes, and using the information to support self-management. However, there were challenges related to difficulty in understanding medical terminology, incorrect or inadequate notes, missing notes, and usability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients actively used medical notes to receive information to follow professionals' instructions to take care of their health, and patient access to electronic health records can support self-management. However, for the benefits to be realized, improvements in the quality and availability of medical professionals' notes are necessary. Providing a standard information structure could help patients find the information they need. Furthermore, linking notes to vocabularies and other information sources could also improve the understandability of medical terminology; patient agency could be supported by allowing them to add comments to their notes, and patient trust of the system could be improved by allowing them to control the visibility of the professionals' notes.

Methods and Measures Used to Evaluate Patient-Operated Mobile Health Interventions: Scoping Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of mobile health (mHealth) technologies and observations of their impacts on patients' health, there is still no consensus on how best to evaluate these tools for patient self-management of chronic conditions. Researchers currently do not have guidelines on which qualitative or quantitative factors to measure or how to gather these reliable data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to document the methods and both qualitative and quantitative measures used to assess mHealth apps and systems intended for use by patients for the self-management of chronic noncommunicable diseases. METHODS: A scoping review was performed, and PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Research Library were searched for literature published in English between January 1, 2015, and January 18, 2019. Search terms included combinations of the description of the intention of the intervention (eg, self-efficacy and self-management) and description of the intervention platform (eg, mobile app and sensor). Article selection was based on whether the intervention described a patient with a chronic noncommunicable disease as the primary user of a tool or system that would always be available for self-management. The extracted data included study design, health conditions, participants, intervention type (app or system), methods used, and measured qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. Studies were classified as either those that evaluated mHealth apps (ie, single devices; n=15) or mHealth systems (ie, more than one tool; n=17), and one study evaluated both apps and systems. App interventions mainly targeted mental health conditions (including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular and heart diseases; among the 17 studies that described mHealth systems, most involved patients diagnosed with cardiovascular and heart disease, followed by diabetes, respiratory disease, mental health conditions, cancer, and multiple illnesses. The most common evaluation method was collection of usage logs (n=21), followed by standardized questionnaires (n=18) and ad-hoc questionnaires (n=13). The most common measure was app interaction (n=19), followed by usability/feasibility (n=17) and patient-reported health data via the app (n=15). CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that health intervention studies are taking advantage of the additional resources that mHealth technologies provide. As mHealth technologies become more prevalent, the call for evidence includes the impacts on patients' self-efficacy and engagement, in addition to traditional measures. However, considering the unstructured data forms, diverse use, and various platforms of mHealth, it can be challenging to select the right methods and measures to evaluate mHealth technologies. The inclusion of app usage logs, patient-involved methods, and other approaches to determine the impact of mHealth is an important step forward in health intervention research. We hope that this overview will become a catalogue of the possible ways in which mHealth has been and can be integrated into research practice.

Patient Use and Experience With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Norway: Results From an Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) has been fully established in all Norwegian hospitals. Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are available to citizens aged 16 years and older through the national health portal Helsenorge. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at understanding how patients use PAEHRs. Three research questions were addressed in order to explore (1) characteristics of users, (2) patients' use of the service, and (3) patient experience with the service. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of users who had accessed their EHR online at least once through the national health portal. Patients from two of the four health regions in Norway were invited to participate. Quantitative data were supplemented by qualitative information. RESULTS: A total of 1037 respondents participated in the survey, most of whom used the PAEHR regularly (305/1037, 29.4%) or when necessary (303/1037, 29.2%). Service utilization was associated with self-reported health, age, gender, education, and health care professional background. Patients found the service useful to look up health information (687/778, 88.3%), keep track of their treatment (684/778, 87.9%), prepare for a hospital appointment (498/778, 64.0%), and share documents with their general practitioner (292/778, 37.5%) or family (194/778, 24.9%). Most users found it easy to access their EHR online (965/1037, 93.1%) and did not encounter technical challenges. The vast majority of respondents (643/755, 85.2%) understood the content, despite over half of them acknowledging some difficulties with medical terms or phrases. The overall satisfaction with the service was very high (700/755, 92.7%). Clinical advantages to the patients included enhanced knowledge of their health condition (565/691, 81.8%), easier control over their health status (685/740, 92.6%), better self-care (571/653, 87.4%), greater empowerment (493/674, 73.1%), easier communication with health care providers (493/618, 79.8%), and increased security (655/730, 89.7%). Patients with complex, long-term or chronic conditions seemed to benefit the most. PAEHRs were described as useful, informative, effective, helpful, easy, practical, and safe. CONCLUSIONS: PAEHRs in Norway are becoming a mature service and are perceived as useful by patients. Future studies should include experimental designs focused on specific populations or chronic conditions that are more likely to achieve clinically meaningful benefits. Continuous evaluation programs should be conducted to assess implementation and changes of wide-scale routine services over time.

Health Professionals' Experience with Patients Accessing Their Electronic Health Records: Results from an Online Survey.

The aim of this study was to investigate hospital professionals' experience and attitude with patients accessing their own electronic health records. The study was conducted one year after service establishment. Data was collected through an online survey. In total, 457 replies were received. The results revealed a quarter of the administrative staff received feedback from patients or relatives regarding mistakes or missing information in their EHR. In addition, 67.5% of health professionals expected more patients to have basic knowledge of their health status in the future, and 21.4% found patients already gained better knowledge about diagnosis, treatment, or follow-up. The results also revealed some challenges with the service, especially for health professionals working in psychiatry, with some scepticism on whether the service is suitable for the sickest and most vulnerable patients.

Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: eHealth has an enormous potential to improve healthcare cost, effectiveness, and quality of care. However, there seems to be a gap between the foreseen benefits of research and clinical reality. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the factors influencing the outcome of eHealth interventions in terms of success and failure. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for original peer-reviewed studies on implemented eHealth tools that reported on the factors for the success or failure, or both, of the intervention. We conducted the systematic review by following the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework, with 2 of the authors independently reviewing the abstract and full text of the articles. We collected data using standardized forms that reflected the categorization model used in the qualitative analysis of the outcomes reported in the included articles. RESULTS: Among the 903 identified articles, a total of 221 studies complied with the inclusion criteria. The studies were heterogeneous by country, type of eHealth intervention, method of implementation, and reporting perspectives. The article frequency analysis did not show a significant discrepancy between the number of reports on failure (392/844, 46.5%) and on success (452/844, 53.6%). The qualitative analysis identified 27 categories that represented the factors for success or failure of eHealth interventions. A quantitative analysis of the results revealed the category quality of healthcare (n=55) as the most mentioned as contributing to the success of eHealth interventions, and the category costs (n=42) as the most mentioned as contributing to failure. For the category with the highest unique article frequency, workflow (n=51), we conducted a full-text review. The analysis of the 23 articles that met the inclusion criteria identified 6 barriers related to workflow: workload (n=12), role definition (n=7), undermining of face-to-face communication (n=6), workflow disruption (n=6), alignment with clinical processes (n=2), and staff turnover (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed literature suggested that, to increase the likelihood of success of eHealth interventions, future research must ensure a positive impact in the quality of care, with particular attention given to improved diagnosis, clinical management, and patient-centered care. There is a critical need to perform in-depth studies of the workflow(s) that the intervention will support and to perceive the clinical processes involved.

Developing and Implementing Patients' Full-Scale Electronic Access to Their Health Record.

To increase patients' empowerment and involvement in their own health, several countries has decided to provide patients with electronic access to their health record. This paper reports on the main findings from sub-studies and pilots prior to the implementation of patients' access to their medical records in large-scale in the Northern Norway Region. The largest pilot included nearly 500 patients. Data for the participatory design process was collected through questionnaires and interviews. The results revealed that the service in general functioned as expected. The patients reported that they would continue to use the service, recommend it to others, and generally had no problems in understanding the content.

The Role of Medical Transcriptionists in Producing High-Quality Documentation.

This study aimed to investigate the quality-assurance work conducted by medical transcriptionists in the production of medical records, and the implications of these findings when designing a structured electronic patient record (EPR) system in which physicians are supposed to write documentation themselves. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were applied. Qualitative data were collected through informal discussions and focus-group interviews. Quantitative data were collected through the medical transcriptionists' daily recordings of their quality-assurance work. The results show the many essential quality-assurance tasks conducted by medical transcriptionists and the extent of this work. Each medical transcriptionist performs an average of more than six corrections per day, and approximately one of three dictations are corrected. We suggest that these correction and quality-assurance tasks need to be compensated for when designing and developing new structured EPRs. Some quality-assurance tasks may also advantageously be performed by secretaries in the future.

Secretaries' role in EHR Documentation and the Implications of Establishing a Structured EHR System.

Secretaries play an important quality assurance role in today's medical record production. This study aimed to identify quality assurance tasks that a future system cannot easily compensate for when developing a new structured EHR in which the physicians do the writing themselves. The study identified two tasks, which we suggest should also be performed by secretaries in the future.

The evolution of personal health records and their role for self-management: a literature review.

A literature review has been conducted to gain an overview of the evolution of personal health records (PHR) and their role for self-management. This paper presents this evolution overview, based on review of abstracts from relevant publications in addition to full-text review of reviews. A search in the Medline database for 'PHR' and 'self-management' identified 62 unique publications. Of these, 90 % met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The number of studies per year has increased heavily since the PHR and self-management context originated in the early 1990s. Nine studies described messaging functionality, eleven studies described shared access functionalities, and four described both. However, the general evidence remains sparse to document the value of PHR for self-management. Most PHRs are not based on patients' needs and do not support self-management. To be adopted by the users, and to be useful for self-management, PHRs need to be integrated with physicians' EHR systems and provide shared access both ways in addition to secure e-mail communication and educational modules.

Electronic symptom reporting between patient and provider for improved health care service quality: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. part 1: state of the art.

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the number of studies on electronic symptom reporting has increased greatly. However, the field is very heterogeneous: the choices of patient groups, health service innovations, and research targets seem to involve a broad range of foci. To move the field forward, it is necessary to build on work that has been done and direct further research to the areas holding most promise. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on electronic communication between patient and provider to improve health care service quality, presented in two parts. Part 2 investigates the methodological quality and effects of the RCTs, and demonstrates some promising benefits of electronic symptom reporting. OBJECTIVE: To give a comprehensive overview of the most mature part of this emerging field regarding (1) patient groups, (2) health service innovations, and (3) research targets relevant to electronic symptom reporting. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and IEEE Xplore for original studies presented in English-language articles published from 1990 to November 2011. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of interventions where patients or parents reported health information electronically to the health care system for health care purposes and were given feedback. RESULTS: Of 642 records identified, we included 32 articles representing 29 studies. The included articles were published from 2002, with 24 published during the last 5 years. The following five patient groups were represented: respiratory and lung diseases (12 studies), cancer (6), psychiatry (6), cardiovascular (3), and diabetes (1). In addition to these, 1 study had a mix of three groups. All included studies, except 1, focused on long-term conditions. We identified four categories of health service innovations: consultation support (7 studies), monitoring with clinician support (12), self-management with clinician support (9), and therapy (1). Most of the research (21/29, 72%) was conducted within four combinations: consultation support innovation in the cancer group (5/29, 17%), monitoring innovation in the respiratory and lung diseases group (8/29, 28%), and self-management innovations in psychiatry (4/29, 14%) and in the respiratory and lung diseases group (4/29, 14%). Research targets in the consultation support studies focused on increased patient centeredness, while monitoring and self-management mainly aimed at documenting health benefits. All except 1 study aiming for reduced health care costs were in the monitoring group. CONCLUSION: RCT-based research on electronic symptom reporting has developed enormously since 2002. Research including additional patient groups or new combinations of patient groups with the four identified health service innovations can be expected in the near future. We suggest that developing a generic model (not diagnosis specific) for electronic patient symptom reporting for long-term conditions may benefit the field.

Electronic symptom reporting between patient and provider for improved health care service quality: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. part 2: methodological quality and effects.

BACKGROUND: We conducted in two parts a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on electronic symptom reporting between patients and providers to improve health care service quality. Part 1 reviewed the typology of patient groups, health service innovations, and research targets. Four innovation categories were identified: consultation support, monitoring with clinician support, self-management with clinician support, and therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of the RCTs, and summarize effects and benefits from the methodologically best studies. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and IEEE Xplore for original studies presented in English-language articles between 1990 and November 2011. Risk of bias and feasibility were judged according to the Cochrane recommendation, and theoretical evidence and preclinical testing were evaluated according to the Framework for Design and Evaluation of Complex Interventions to Improve Health. Three authors assessed the risk of bias and two authors extracted the effect data independently. Disagreement regarding bias assessment, extraction, and interpretation of results were resolved by consensus discussions. RESULTS: Of 642 records identified, we included 32 articles representing 29 studies. No articles fulfilled all quality requirements. All interventions were feasible to implement in a real-life setting, and theoretical evidence was provided for almost all studies. However, preclinical testing was reported in only a third of the articles. We judged three-quarters of the articles to have low risk for random sequence allocation and approximately half of the articles to have low risk for the following biases: allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Slightly more than one fifth of the articles were judged as low risk for blinding of outcome assessment. Only 1 article had low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We excluded 12 articles showing high risk or unclear risk for both selective reporting and blinding of outcome assessment from the effect assessment. The authors' hypothesis was confirmed for 13 (65%) of the 20 remaining articles. Articles on self-management support were of higher quality, allowing us to assess effects in a larger proportion of studies. All except one self-management interventions were equally effective to or better than the control option. The self-management articles document substantial benefits for patients, and partly also for health professionals and the health care system. CONCLUSION: Electronic symptom reporting between patients and providers is an exciting area of development for health services. However, the research generally is of low quality. The field would benefit from increased focus on methods for conducting and reporting RCTs. It appears particularly important to improve blinding of outcome assessment and to precisely define primary outcomes to avoid selective reporting. Supporting self-management seems to be especially promising, but consultation support also shows encouraging results.