CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

‘Never heard of it’– understanding the public’s lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record

Open access
Bratan, Tanja, Stramer, Katja, Greenhalgh, Trisha·2010·Health Expectations
DOI 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.xPMC PMC5060545
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of electronic patient records that are accessible by multiple providers raises security issues and requires informed consent - or at the very least, an opportunity to opt out. Introduction of the Summary Care Record (SCR) (a centrally stored electronic summary of a patient's medical record) in pilot sites in the UK was associated with low awareness, despite an intensive public information programme that included letters, posters, leaflets, and road shows. AIM: To understand why the public information programme had limited impact and to learn lessons for future programmes. METHODS: Linguistic and communications analysis of components of the programme, contextualized within a wider mixed-method case study of the introduction of the SCR in pilot sites. Theoretical insights from linguistics and communication studies were applied. RESULTS: The context of the SCR pilots and the linked information programme created inherent challenges which were partially but not fully overcome by the efforts of campaigners. Much effort was put into designing the content of a mail merge letter, but less attention was given to its novelty, linguistic style, and rhetorical appeal. Many recipients viewed this letter as junk mail or propaganda and discarded it unread. Other components of the information programme were characterized by low visibility, partly because only restricted areas were participating in the pilot. Relatively little use was made of interpersonal communication channels. CONCLUSION: Despite ethical and legal imperatives, informed consent for the introduction of shared electronic records may be difficult to achieve through public information campaigns. Success may be more likely if established principles of effective mass and interpersonal communication are applied.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bratan, T., Stramer, K., & Greenhalgh, T.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-04
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
379-391
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
DOI
10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x
PMC
PMC5060545
OpenAlex
W2130229270
Cited by
34
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
electronic health records, Summary Care Record, public awareness, informed consent, opt-out, information campaigns, shared electronic health records, health information literacy, communication design, interpersonal communication
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Humans, Informed Consent, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Pilot Projects, Public Opinion, Program Evaluation, Information Dissemination, Health Literacy, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review