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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Symptoms from patients as the primary information source for real-time surveillance.

The aim of this study was to identify whether patients could become the primary data source for symptom based real-time surveillance. The study investigated people's attitude towards providing symptom information electronically before a consultation, and how they preferred to carry out the reporting. Data was collected by distributing questionnaires to 83 respondents. The results show that 96 percent of the respondents had a positive attitude towards providing information about their symptoms to the GP's office as soon as possible after falling ill. Over half of the respondents preferred to use e-mail or a web-interface to perform this task. Eighty four percent were willing to have their symptom data stored in their EPR and 76 percent agreed that the GP might access and present the symptoms together with the prevalence of matching diseases in order to assist the diagnostic process during the next consultation. This study indicates that patients could become the primary data source for symptom based surveillance in countries with high e-readiness.

Authentication and encryption in the Snow disease surveillance network.

The paper presents how authentication and encryption is implemented in the Snow disease surveillance network. Requirements for the authentication mechanism were collected from General Practitioners (GPs). The identity of each Snow user is preserved across health institutions allowing GPs to move freely between health institutions and use the system independent of location. This ability is combined with close to zero user account administration within the participating institutions. The system provides global user certificate revocation and end-to-end encryption.

The potential of digital monochrome images versus colour slides in telescreening for diabetic retinopathy.

We explored the potential of digital monochrome images as an alternative to colour slides in screening for diabetic retinopathy. Twenty-eight patients with diabetes were recruited for the study and 20 actually participated. Using a fundus camera (Nikon 505AF) one set of three digital images and one set of three colour slides were taken per eye. Two independent ophthalmologists graded the colour slides and the digital images for diabetic retinopathy. The ophthalmologists spent about two minutes grading each set of images, suggesting that specialists could potentially screen a large number of patients. The agreement between the two screening methods was 0.95 and 0.89, with respect to disease or no disease. The agreement (kappa) between the two ophthalmologists for grade of retinopathy was 0.47 when colour slides were employed and 0.61 when digital monochrome images were employed. The results indicate that digital red-free monochrome images represent a superior screening tool for diabetic retinopathy. Tele-screening may be beneficial when patients have to travel substantial distances to visit an ophthalmologist.

A feasibility study of email communication between the patient's family and the specialist burns team.

We investigated whether the parents of burns patients could capture suitable clinical images with a digital camera and add the necessary text information to enable the paediatric burns team to provide follow-up care via email. Four families were involved in the study, each of whom sent regular email consultations for six months. The results were very encouraging. The burns team felt confident that the clinical information in 30 of the 32 email messages (94%) they received was accurate, although in 11 of these 30 cases (37%) they stated that there was room for improvement (the quality was nonetheless adequate for clinical decision making). The study also showed that low-resolution images (average size 37 kByte) were satisfactory for diagnosis. Families were able to participate in the service without intensive training and support. The user survey showed that all four families found it easy and convenient to take the digital photographs and to participate in the study. The results suggest that the technique has potential as a low-cost telemedicine service in burns follow-up, and that it requires only modest investment in equipment, training and support.

Telemedicine screening for diabetic retinopathy: staff and patient satisfaction.

In a pilot project, telemedicine was used to conduct retinal examinations of diabetic patients in the Alta municipality of Norway. All health-care workers who were involved in the project were interviewed. The ophthalmologists found that the grading of the level of retinopathy was quicker with digital images than with slit-lamp examinations. Fifty patients with type II diabetes were invited to attend a telemedicine check-up and 42 did so. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire after the telemedicine examination and we received 32 replies (a 76% response rate), of which 12 were from men and 20 from women. The patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the telemedicine examination. The results of the evaluation also clearly showed that trust between health personnel was of major importance in engendering positive attitudes. Confidence is the basis of good collaboration between the various professions in the health-care sector, between health-care levels and between patients and treatment providers - in terms not only of individuals' confidence but also of routines, procedures and the system as a whole.