Visit Experience and Fulfillment of Care Needs in Primary Care Differs for Video Visits Compared to In-person and Chat Visits.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of research comparing patient experience and to what extent patients' care needs are fulfilled in telemedicine compared to in-person care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if patient experience and fulfillment of care needs differ between video and chat visits with direct to consumer telemedicine providers compared to in-person visits. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults visiting a primary care physician in person or via chat or video in Region Stockholm, Sweden, October 2020-May 2021. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported visit experience and fulfillment of care needs. KEY RESULTS: The sample included 3315 patients who had an in-person (1950), video (844), or chat (521) visit. Response rates were 42% for in-person visitors and 41% for telemedicine visitors. Patients were 18-97 years old, mean age of 51 years, and 66% were female. In-person visitors reported the most positive patient experience ("To a very high degree" or "Yes, completely") for being listened to (64%), being treated with care (64%), and feeling trust and confidence in the health care professional (76%). Chat visitors reported the most positive patient experience for being given enough time (61%) and having care needs fulfilled during the care visit (76%). Video visitors had the largest proportion of respondents choosing "To a very low degree" or "No, not at all" for all visit experience measures. There were statistically significant differences in the distribution of visit experiences between in-person, video, and chat visits for all visit experience measures (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Video visits were associated with a more negative visit experience and lower fulfillment of care needs than in-person visits. Chat visits were associated with a similar patient experience and fulfillment of care needs as in-person visits. Chat visits may be a viable alternative to in-person visits for selected patients.

Balancing feeling 'prepared' without feeling 'devoured': A qualitative study of self-care from the perspective of self-empowered persons living with Parkinson's disease in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's Disease (PD) is a complex neurodegenerative disease resulting in a wide range of motor and nonmotor symptoms for which the treatment regimen is often complex. People with Parkinson's (PwP) spend time daily on self-care practices including self-tracking signs and symptoms or seeking disease-specific knowledge. Research suggests self-care interventions yield promising care and health outputs for PwP, yet most research focuses on the provider perspective rather than that of those conducting the self-care. This study explores the meaning of self-care, disease-specific knowledge, and self-tracking from the perspective of PwP in Sweden. METHODS: Qualitative data from three data sets were analyzed and compared using qualitative content analysis: one focus group on self-care (n = 14), one free-text survey on disease-specific knowledge (n = 197) and one free-text survey on self-tracking (n = 33). FINDINGS: The analysis resulted in three categories: illness-related tasks, internal resources and external resources. Illness-related tasks describe various tasks PwP carry out in self-care, including lifestyle choices, treatments, and self-tracking. Internal resources include personal knowledge/skills as well as mindsets which could facilitate or challenge completing these tasks. Finally, external resources include other PwP, literature, clinicians and other sources of disease-specific knowledge. Self-care was found to fluctuate between beneficial and burdensome depending on such resources. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, self-care needs to be acknowledged and discussed more often in PD and other complex conditions. Future self-care interventions should consider self-tracking and disease-specific knowledge as well as internal and external resources in their design and implementation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A researcher with PD was actively involved in all phases of the research: study design, data collection and analysis, and preparing the manuscript.

A Nordic Perspective on Patient Online Record Access and the European Health Data Space.

The Nordic countries are, together with the United States, forerunners in online record access (ORA), which has now become widespread. The importance of accessible and structured health data has also been highlighted by policy makers internationally. To ensure the full realization of ORA's potential in the short and long term, there is a pressing need to study ORA from a cross-disciplinary, clinical, humanistic, and social sciences perspective that looks beyond strictly technical aspects. In this viewpoint paper, we explore the policy changes in the European Health Data Space (EHDS) proposal to advance ORA across the European Union, informed by our research in a Nordic-led project that carries out the first of its kind, large-scale international investigation of patients' ORA-NORDeHEALTH (Nordic eHealth for Patients: Benchmarking and Developing for the Future). We argue that the EHDS proposal will pave the way for patients to access and control third-party access to their electronic health records. In our analysis of the proposal, we have identified five key principles for ORA: (1) the right to access, (2) proxy access, (3) patient input of their own data, (4) error and omission rectification, and (5) access control. ORA implementation today is fragmented throughout Europe, and the EHDS proposal aims to ensure all European citizens have equal online access to their health data. However, we argue that in order to implement the EHDS, we need more research evidence on the key ORA principles we have identified in our analysis. Results from the NORDeHEALTH project provide some of that evidence, but we have also identified important knowledge gaps that still need further exploration.

Individual Patient Factors Associated with the Use of Physical or Digital Primary Care in Sweden.

Introduction: Little is known about factors that influence patients' choice to use physical or digital primary care. This study aimed to compare self-rated health, internet habits, and what patients deem important when choosing health care between users of physical and digital primary health care. Methods: We recruited 2,716 adults visiting one of six physical or four digital primary health care providers in Stockholm, Sweden, October 2020 to May 2021. Participants answered a questionnaire with questions about sociodemography, self-rated health, internet habits, and what they considered important when seeking care. We used logistic regression and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for choosing digital care. Results: Digital users considered themselves healthier and used the internet more, compared with physical users (p < 0.001). Competence of health care staff was the most important factor when seeking care to both physical and digital users (90% and 78%, respectively). Patients considering it important to avoid leaving home were more likely to seek digital care (OR 29.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.65-69.06), while patients valuing continuity were more likely to seek physical care (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.19-0.32). These factors were significant also when adjusting for self-rated health and sociodemographic characteristics. Conclusion: What patients considered important when seeking health care was associated with what type of care they sought. Patient preferences should be considered when planning health care to optimize resource allocation.

Empowered patients and informal care-givers as partners?-a survey study of healthcare professionals' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: More knowledge is needed regarding the perceptions of healthcare professionals when encountering empowered patients and informal caregivers in clinical settings. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' attitudes towards and experiences of working with empowered patients and informal caregivers, and perception of workplace support in these situations. METHODS: A multi-centre web survey was conducted using a non-probability sampling of both primary and specialized healthcare professionals across Sweden. A total of 279 healthcare professionals completed the survey. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and Thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most respondents perceived empowered patients and informal caregivers as positive and had to some extent experience of learning new knowledge and skills from them. However, few respondents stated that these experiences were regularly followed-up at their workplace. Potentially negative consequences such as increased inequality and additional workload were, however, mentioned. Patients' engagement in the development of clinical workplaces was seen as positive by the respondents, but few had own experience of such engagement and considered it difficult to be achieved . CONCLUSION: Overall positive attitudes of healthcare professionals are a fundamental prerequisite to the transition of the healthcare system recognizing empowered patients and informal caregivers as partners.

Patient Online Record Access in English Primary Care: Qualitative Survey Study of General Practitioners' Views.

BACKGROUND: In 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes"). METHODS: In March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.

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.

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.

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.

Escape to the future - a qualitative study of physicians' views on the work environment, education, and support in a digital context.

BACKGROUND: The use of remote services such as video consultations (VCs) has increased significantly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Sweden, private healthcare providers offering VCs have grown substantially since 2016 and have been controversial. Few studies have focused on physicians' experiences providing care in this context. Our aim was to study physicians' experiences of VCs, focusing on the work environment, quality of care, and educational needs. METHODS: Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were performed with physicians working with VCs in Sweden, and analyzed through inductive content analysis. RESULTS: We identified five categories; flexibility, social work environment, impact on care and society, continuous learning and career development, and organizational support. Flexibility and accessibility were considered positive features of working digitally by giving physicians control over their time and workplace and increasing patients' timely access to healthcare. Regarding collegial contact and social activities in a digital context, the majority of the participants did not experience any significant difference compared to the physical context. Access to technical support services, educational support, and collegial support in decision-making, guidance, and consultations were described as well-functioning. Satisfied patients positively impacted the work environment, and participants felt that VCs have a positive socio-economic effect. Continuity of care was considered supported, but patients did not always prioritize this. Privacy risks were considered a challenge, as were poor development of clinical skills due to the low variation of patient cases. Working for an online healthcare provider was contributing to career advancements for junior clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians appreciate the flexibility of the digital context and seem satisfied with a work environment where they have a high level of control, but few consider this a full-time career option. The pandemic year 2020 has led to a significant increase in the implementation of VCs in traditional care systems. How this affects the work environment and continuous education needs and career development remains to be seen.

The polyamine transporter Slc18b1(VPAT) is important for both short and long time memory and for regulation of polyamine content in the brain.

SLC18B1 is a sister gene to the vesicular monoamine and acetylcholine transporters, and the only known polyamine transporter, with unknown physiological role. We reveal that Slc18b1 knock out mice has significantly reduced polyamine content in the brain providing the first evidence that Slc18b1 is functionally required for regulating polyamine levels. We found that this mouse has impaired short and long term memory in novel object recognition, radial arm maze and self-administration paradigms. We also show that Slc18b1 KO mice have altered expression of genes involved in Long Term Potentiation, plasticity, calcium signalling and synaptic functions and that expression of components of GABA and glutamate signalling are changed. We further observe a partial resistance to diazepam, manifested as significantly lowered reduction in locomotion after diazepam treatment. We suggest that removal of Slc18b1 leads to reduction of polyamine contents in neurons, resulting in reduced GABA signalling due to long-term reduction in glutamatergic signalling.

Views, Use, and Experiences of Web-Based Access to Pediatric Electronic Health Records for Children, Adolescents, and Parents: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing efforts worldwide to provide patients with patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have led to variability in adolescent and parental access across providers, regions, and countries. There is no compilation of evidence to guide policy decisions in matters such as access age and the extent of parent proxy access. In this paper, we outline our scoping review of different stakeholders' (including but not limited to end users) views, use, and experiences pertaining to web-based access to electronic health records (EHRs) by children, adolescents, and parents. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify, categorize, and summarize knowledge about different stakeholders' (eg, children and adolescents, parents, health care professionals [HCPs], policy makers, and designers of patient portals or PAEHRs) views, use, and experiences of EHR access for children, adolescents, and parents. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A literature search identified eligible papers that focused on EHR access for children, adolescents, and parents that were published between 2007 and 2021. A number of databases were used to search for literature (PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). RESULTS: The approach resulted in 4817 identified articles and 74 (1.54%) included articles. The papers were predominantly viewpoints based in the United States, and the number of studies on parents was larger than that on adolescents and HCPs combined. First, adolescents and parents without access anticipated low literacy and confidentiality issues; however, adolescents and parents who had accessed their records did not report such concerns. Second, the main issue for HCPs was maintaining adolescent confidentiality. This remained an issue after using PAEHRs for parents, HCPs, and other stakeholders but was not an experienced issue for adolescents. Third, the viewpoints of other stakeholders provided a number of suggestions to mitigate issues. Finally, education is needed for adolescents, parents, and HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited research on pediatric PAEHRs, particularly outside the United States, and on adolescents' experiences with web-based access to their records. These findings could inform the design and implementation of future regulations regarding access to PAEHRs. Further examination is warranted on the experiences of adolescents, parents, and HCPs to improve usability and utility, inform universal principles reducing the current arbitrariness in the child's age for own and parental access to EHRs among providers worldwide, and ensure that portals are equipped to safely and appropriately manage a wide variety of patient circumstances. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/36158.

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.

Patients, clinicians and open notes: information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice.

In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians ('open notes'). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients' access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety.

Patient Access to Mental Health Notes: Motivating Evidence-Informed Ethical Guidelines.

ABSTRACT: In the last decade, many health organizations have embarked on a revolution in clinical communication. Using electronic devices, patients can now gain rapid access to their online clinical records. Legally, patients in many countries already have the right to obtain copies of their health records; however, the practice known as "open notes" is different. Via secure online health portals, patients are now able to access their test results, lists of medications, and the very words that clinicians write about them. Open notes are growing with most patients in the Nordic countries already offered access to their full electronic record. From April 2021, a new federal ruling in the United States mandates-with few exemptions-that providers offer patients access to their online notes (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-02224.pdf#page=99). Against these policy changes, only limited attention has been paid to the ethical question about whether patients with mental health conditions should access their notes, as mentioned in the articles by Strudwick, Yeung, and Gratzer (Front Psychiatry 10:917, 2019) and Blease, O'Neill, Walker, Hägglund, and Torous (Lancet Psychiatry 7:924-925, 2020). In this article, our goal is to motivate further inquiry into opening mental health notes to patients, particularly among persons with serious mental illness and those accessing psychological treatments. Using biomedical ethical principles to frame our discussion, we identify key empirical questions that must be pursued to inform ethical practice guidelines.

From Information Seekers to Innovators: Qualitative Analysis Describing Experiences of the Second Generation of E-Patients.

BACKGROUND: Current health care systems are rarely designed to meet the needs of people living with chronic conditions. However, some patients and informal caregivers are not waiting for the health care system to redesign itself. These individuals are sometimes referred to as e-patients. The first generation of e-patients used the internet for finding information and for communicating with peers. Compared with the first generation, the second generation of e-patients collects their own health data and appears to be more innovative. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the second generation of e-patients through exploration of their active engagement in their self-care and health care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 patients with chronic conditions and 5 informal caregivers. They were all recruited through a Web-based advertisement. Data were analyzed according to the framework analysis approach, using the 3 concepts of the self-determination theory-autonomy, relatedness, and competence-at the outset. RESULTS: Study participants were actively engaged in influencing their self-care and the health care system to improve their own health, as well as the health of others. This occurred at different levels, such as using their own experience when giving presentations and lectures to health care professionals and medical students, working as professional peers in clinical settings, performing self-tracking, contributing with innovations, and being active on social media. When interaction with health care providers was perceived as being insufficient, the participants sought support through their peers, which showed strong relatedness. Competence increased through the use of technology and learning experiences with peers. Their autonomy was important but was sometimes described as involuntary and to give up was not an option for them. CONCLUSIONS: Like the first generation of e-patients, the participants frequently searched for Web-based information. However, the second generation of e-patients also produce their own health data, which they learn from and share. They also engage in the innovation of digital tools to meet health-related needs. Utilizing technological developments comes naturally to the second generation of e-patients, even if the health care system is not prepared to support them under these new circumstances.

"You have to know why you're doing this": a mixed methods study of the benefits and burdens of self-tracking in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: This study explores opinions and experiences of people with Parkinson's disease (PwP) in Sweden of using self-tracking. Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative condition entailing varied and changing symptoms and side effects that can be a challenge to manage optimally. Patients' self-tracking has demonstrated potential in other diseases, but we know little about PD self-tracking. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the opinions and experiences of PwP in Sweden of using self-tracking for PD. METHOD: A mixed methods approach was used, combining qualitative data from seven interviews with quantitative data from a survey to formulate a model for self-tracking in PD. In total 280 PwP responded to the survey, 64% (n = 180) of which had experience from self-tracking. RESULT: We propose a model for self-tracking in PD which share distinctive characteristics with the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle for healthcare improvement. PwP think that tracking takes a lot of work and the right individual balance between burdens and benefits needs to be found. Some strategies have here been identified; to focus on positive aspects rather than negative, to find better solutions for their selfcare, and to increase the benefits through improved tools and increased use of self-tracking results in the dialogue with healthcare. CONCLUSION: The main identified benefits are that self-tracking gives PwP a deeper understanding of their own specific manifestations of PD and contributes to a more effective decision making regarding their own selfcare. The process of self-tracking also enables PwP to be more active in communicating with healthcare. Tracking takes a lot of work and there is a need to find the right balance between burdens and benefits.

Accessing and sharing health information for post-discharge stroke care through a national health information exchange platform - a case study.

BACKGROUND: Patients and citizens need access to their health information to get a retrospective as well as a prospective view on their care and rehabilitation processes. However, patients' health information is stored in several health information systems and interoperability problems often hamper accessibility. In Sweden a national health information exchange (HIE) platform has been developed that enables information exchange between different health information systems. The aim of this study is to explore the opportunities and limitations of accessing and interacting with important health information through the Swedish national HIE platform. METHODS: A single case study approach was used for this study as an in-depth understanding of the subject was needed. A fictive patient case with a pseudo-name was created based on an interview with a stroke coordinator in Stockholm County. Information access through the national health information exchange platform and available service contracts and application programming interfaces were studied using different scenarios. RESULTS: Based on the scenarios created in this study, patients would be able to access some health related information from their electronic health records using the national health information exchange platform. However, there is necessary information which is not retrievable as it is either stored in electronic health records and eHealth services which are not connected to the national health information exchange platform or there is no service contract developed for these types of information. In addition, patients are not able to share information with healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: The national Swedish HIE platform provides the building blocks needed to allow patients online access to their health information in a fragmented and distributed health system. However, more complex interaction scenarios allowing patients to communicate with their health care providers or to update their health related information are not yet supported. Therefore it is of great importance to involve patients throughout the design and evaluation of eHealth services on both national and local levels to ensure that their needs for interoperability and information exchange are met.

Patients' Experiences of Accessing Their Electronic Health Records: National Patient Survey in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is a movement toward providing patients a Web-based access to their electronic health records (EHRs). In Sweden, Region Uppsala was the first to introduce patient-accessible EHRs (PAEHRs) in 2012. By the summer of 2016, 17 of 21 county councils had given citizens Web-based access to their medical information. Studies on the effect of PAEHRs on the work environment of health care professionals have been conducted, but up until now, few extensive studies have been conducted regarding patients' experiences of using PAEHRs in Sweden or Europe, more generally. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to investigate patients' experiences of accessing their EHRs through the Swedish national patient portal. In this study, we have focused on describing user characteristics, usage, and attitudes toward the system. METHODS: A national patient survey was designed, based on previous interview and survey studies with patients and health care professionals. Data were collected during a 5-month period in 2016. The survey was made available through the PAEHR system, called Journalen, in Sweden. The total number of patients that logged in and could access the survey during the study period was 423,141. In addition to descriptive statistics reporting response frequencies on Likert scale questions, Mann-Whitney tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and chi-square tests were used to compare answers between different county councils as well as between respondents working in health care and all other respondents. RESULTS: Overall, 2587 users completed the survey with a response rate of 0.61% (2587/423,141). Two participants were excluded from the analysis because they had only received care in a county council that did not yet show any information in Journalen. The results showed that 62.97% (1629/2587) of respondents were women and 39.81% (1030/2587) were working or had been working in health care. In addition, 72.08% (1794/2489) of respondents used Journalen about once a month, and the main reason for use was to gain an overview of one's health status. Furthermore, respondents reported that lab results were the most important information for them to access; 68.41% (1737/2539) of respondents wanted access to new information within a day, and 96.58% (2454/2541) of users reported that they are positive toward Journalen. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, respondents provided several important reasons for why they use Journalen and why it is important for them to be able to access information in this way-several related to patient empowerment, involvement, and security. Considering the overall positive attitude, PAEHRs seem to fill important needs for patients.