Open notes in psychotherapy: An exploratory mixed methods survey of psychotherapy students in Switzerland.

Background: In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as "open notes"). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes. Objective: This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients' access to psychotherapists' free-text summaries. Methods: We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions. Results: Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches. Conclusions: Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice.

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.

Adolescents' reasons for accessing their health records online, perceived usefulness and experienced provider encouragement: a national survey in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Having online access to electronic health records (EHRs) may help patients become engaged in their care at an early age. However, little is known about adolescents using patient portals. A national survey conducted within the Nordic eHealth project NORDeHEALTH provided an important opportunity to advance our understanding of adolescent users of patient portals. The present study explored reasons for reading the EHRs, the perceived usefulness of information and functions in a patient portal and the association between frequency of use and encouragement to read the EHR. METHODS: Data were collected in a survey using convenience sampling, available through the Swedish online health portal during 3 weeks in January and February 2022. This study included a subset of items and only respondents aged 15-19. Demographic factors and frequencies on Likert-style questions were reported with descriptive statistics, while Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences in use frequency based on having been encouraged to read by a healthcare professional (HCP). RESULTS: Of 13 008 users who completed the survey, 218 (1.7%) were unique users aged 15-19 (females: 77.1%). One-fifth (47/218, 21.6%) had been encouraged by HCPs to read their records, and having been encouraged by HCPs was related to higher use frequency (p=0.018). All types of information were rated high on usefulness, while some functions were rated low, such as blocking specific clinical notes from HCPs and managing services for family members. The main reason for reading their health records online was out of curiosity. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who read their records online perceive it to be useful. Encouragement by HCPs can lead to increased use of patient portals among adolescents. Findings should be considered in the future design of patient portals for adolescents.

Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences and opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in England regarding patients having access to their full online GP health records. DESIGN: Convenience sample, online survey. PARTICIPANTS: 400 registered GPs in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Investigators measured GPs' experiences and opinions about online record access (ORA), including patient care and their practice. RESULTS: A total of 400 GPs from all regions of England responded. A minority (130, 33%) believed ORA was a good idea. Most GPs believed a majority of patients would worry more (364, 91%) or find their GP records more confusing than helpful (338, 85%). Most GPs believed a majority of patients would find significant errors in their records (240, 60%), would better remember their care plan (280, 70%) and feel more in control of their care (243, 60%). The majority believed they will/already spend more time addressing patients' questions outside of consultations (357, 89%), that consultations will/already take significantly longer (322, 81%) and that they will be/already are less candid in their documentation (289, 72%) after ORA. Nearly two-thirds of GPs believed ORA would increase their litigation (246, 62%). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to clinicians in other countries, GPs in our sample were sceptical of ORA, believing patients would worry more and find their records more confusing than helpful. Most GPs also believed the practice would exacerbate work burdens. However, the majority of GPs in this survey also agreed there were multiple benefits to patients having online access to their primary care health records. The findings of this survey also contribute to a growing body of contrastive research from countries where ORA is advanced, demonstrating clinicians are sceptical while studies indicate patients appear to derive multiple benefits.

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.

Security and Privacy of Online Record Access: A Survey of Adolescents' Views and Experiences in Sweden.

PURPOSE: Ensuring security of online health records and patients' perceptions of security are concerns in adolescent healthcare. Little is known about adolescents' perceptions about healthcare's ability to protect online health records. This article explores adolescents' perspectives on security and privacy of their online health records, potential differences based on gender and health, attitudes to sharing information, and perceptions of what constitutes sensitive information. METHODS: This study included a subset of items from a national online patient survey conducted in Sweden (January-February 2022), focusing on respondents aged 15-19 years. Gender and health status differences were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Of 218 adolescent respondents (77.1% female), a minority had security and privacy concerns. A notable proportion (41.3%) wished to control who could see their records, and those who reported better perceived health were more likely to want to manage access to their electronic health record (H = 13.569, p = .009). Most had not experienced unauthorized access to their records (75.2%) and had never shared health information on other online applications (85.8%). More than half (56.0%) perceived some information as sensitive, where mental health was the most common (76.0%). Most felt that reading their notes improved their trust for their healthcare professional (65.6%) and supported better communication with healthcare professionals (66.5%). DISCUSSION: In this national survey, adolescents generally reported few concerns about patient portals. Findings emphasize the need for security and privacy protection and to empower adolescents with greater control over access to their health information housed in electronic health record systems.

Generative Language Models and Open Notes: Exploring the Promise and Limitations.

Patients' online record access (ORA) is growing worldwide. In some countries, including the United States and Sweden, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records on the web including laboratory and test results, lists of prescribed medications, vaccinations, and even the very narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, commonly referred to as "open notes"). In the United States, patient's ORA is also available in a downloadable form for use with other apps. While survey studies have shown that some patients report many benefits from ORA, there remain challenges with implementation around writing clinical documentation that patients may now read. With ORA, the functionality of the record is evolving; it is no longer only an aide memoire for doctors but also a communication tool for patients. Studies suggest that clinicians are changing how they write documentation, inviting worries about accuracy and completeness. Other concerns include work burdens; while few objective studies have examined the impact of ORA on workload, some research suggests that clinicians are spending more time writing notes and answering queries related to patients' records. Aimed at addressing some of these concerns, clinician and patient education strategies have been proposed. In this viewpoint paper, we explore these approaches and suggest another longer-term strategy: the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to support clinicians in documenting narrative summaries that patients will find easier to understand. Applied to narrative clinical documentation, we suggest that such approaches may significantly help preserve the accuracy of notes, strengthen writing clarity and signals of empathy and patient-centered care, and serve as a buffer against documentation work burdens. However, we also consider the current risks associated with existing generative AI. We emphasize that for this innovation to play a key role in ORA, the cocreation of clinical notes will be imperative. We also caution that clinicians will need to be supported in how to work alongside generative AI to optimize its considerable potential.

Patients' Experiences of Demanded Access to Online Health Records.

Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHR) is particularly controversial in mental healthcare. We aim to explore if there is any association between patients with mental health conditions and the experience of someone demanding access to their PAEHR. A chi-square test showed a significant association between group belonging and experiences of someone demanding access to the PAEHR.

Adolescents' and Young Adults' Experiences of Offense from Reading Their Health Records Online.

Patients feeling offended by reading records online is a concern among healthcare professionals, however previously published work has focused on adult patients. Here, a survey was used to explore and compare experiences of offense among adolescents (15-19 years old) and young adults (20-24 years old). Findings indicated that while the ratio of those offended did not differ between adolescents and young adults, reasons for feeling offended did.

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.

Primary Healthcare Professionals' Improvement Suggestions for the Patient Accessible Health Record.

Patients' online record access is a worldwide phenomenon, where Sweden is one of the pioneers in actual countrywide implementation. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have previously raised usability issues with e-health systems and proposed several solutions, yet no studies have explored PAEHRs from this perspective. The aim of this study was to describe primary HCPs' suggestions on how the Swedish online record could be improved. They (n=14) were asked what they would like to improve with the system to increase usability and usefulness for patients or for themselves. Suggestions covered expanding what patients could view, simplification of the service for both the patients and themselves, adding feedback functions, and limiting access to only signed records.

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.

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.

Patients' Experiences of Initiating Video Consultations.

Implementation and adoption of video consultations (VCs) in healthcare are not straightforward. Experiences of initiating a VC could increase our understanding of adoption by patients. This study aims to report patients' experiences of installing and booking a VC in primary care. Most people found it easy to find and install the VC application. Those with a higher self-reported ability and habit of using digital services and the internet found it easier than those reporting lower ability and habit. About half of our respondents had booked their recent VC themselves, most of whom had done so through a telephone call or the application "Alltid Öppet". The booking process was perceived to be easy by most but more difficult compared to installation. The easy installation process might have led to higher adoption by older people. Nevertheless, during implementation more support should be provided to people with lower digital service and internet use abilities and habits as they might find VC set-up more difficult. More attention should be given to the booking process as it may be a barrier potentially influencing adoption.

To connect or not connect: long-term adoption of video consultations, and reasons for discontinuing use.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigates factors related to long-term and short-term adoption of video consultations (VCs) and reasons for discontinuing use among primary care patients. METHODS: A sample of primary care patients using VCs with healthcare providers were invited to take a survey in a cross-sectional study. Participants were asked about their intention to continue to have video consultations in the future, and those indicating no intention to use VCs in the future (short-term adopters) were asked about their reasons for this. Prevalence and statistical differences between long-term and short-term adopters were investigated. RESULTS: There were several statistically significant differences between long-term and short-term adopters (76% vs. 24%). Long-term adopters consisted of more middle-aged individuals (35-54 years) and the majority worked full-time (56%). They had more positive opinions of VCs and used VCs and video meetings for other purposes to a larger extent. They chose VCs because of the lack of time to go to the healthcare centre and because their provider offered them. The most common reason for discontinuing use was a preference for face-to-face consultations, with the youngest age group (16-34 years) reporting this to a larger extent. DISCUSSION: Younger and older age groups may be less likely to continue the use of VCs, potentially preserving the digital divide. Additionally, disparities in using similar technologies might contribute to the digital divide. Moreover, convenience, positive opinions of VCs, and experience with VCs were related to long-term adoption. Further studies are needed to explore non-use, age's influence, and address usability issues.

Changes in Documentation Due to Patient Access to Electronic Health Records: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are increasingly being implemented. Despite reported benefits to patients, the innovation has prompted concerns among health care professionals (HCPs), including the possibility that access incurs a "dumbing down" of clinical records. Currently, no review has investigated empirical evidence of whether and how documentation changes after introducing PAEHRs. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review examining potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs documentation after using PAEHRs. METHODS: This scoping review will be carried out based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection). Authors will participate in screening identified papers to explore the research questions: How do PAEHRs affect HCPs' documentation practices? and What subjective and objective changes to the clinical notes arise after patient access? Only studies that relate to actual use experiences, and not merely prior expectations about PAEHRs, will be selected in the review. Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies included. RESULTS: The results from this scoping review will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the corpus of evidence. Additional data will be prepared in charts or tabular format. We anticipate the results to be presented in a scoping review at a later date. They will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scoping review that considers potential change in documentation after implementation of PAEHRs. The results can potentially help affirm or refute prior opinions and expectations among various stakeholders about the use of PAEHRs and thereby help to address uncertainties. Results may help to provide guidance to clinicians in writing notes and thus have immediate practical relevance to care. In addition, the review will help to identify any substantive research gaps in this field of research. In the longer term, our findings may contribute to the development of shared documentation guidelines, which in turn are central to improving patient communication and safety. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46722.

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.