Cited by 141Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMedical Coding and Health Information

Patients’ attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study

Open access
Greenhalgh, Trisha, Wood, Gary W, Bratan, Tanja, Stramer, Katja, Hinder, Susan·2008·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To document the views of patients and the public towards the summary care record (SCR, a centrally stored medical record drawn from the general practice record) and HealthSpace (a personal health organiser accessible through the internet from which people can view their SCR), with a particular focus on those with low health literacy, potentially stigmatising conditions, or difficulties accessing health care. DESIGN: 103 semistructured individual interviews and seven focus groups. SETTING: Three early adopter primary care trusts in England where the SCR and HealthSpace are being piloted. All were in areas of relative socioeconomic deprivation. PARTICIPANTS: Individual participants were recruited from general practice surgeries, walk-in centres, out of hours centres, and accident and emergency departments. Participants in focus groups were recruited through voluntary sector organisations; they comprised advocates of vulnerable groups and advocates of people who speak limited English; people with HIV; users of mental health services; young adults; elderly people; and participants of a drug rehabilitation programme. METHODS: Participants were asked if they had received information about the SCR and HealthSpace and about their views on shared electronic records in different circumstances. RESULTS: Most people were not aware of the SCR or HealthSpace and did not recall receiving information about it. They saw both benefits and drawbacks to having an SCR and described a process of weighing the former against the latter when making their personal choice. Key factors influencing this choice included the nature of any illness (especially whether it was likely to lead to emergency care needs); past and present experience of healthcare and government surveillance; the person's level of engagement and health literacy; and their trust and confidence in the primary healthcare team and the wider NHS. Overall, people with stigmatising illness were more positive about the SCR than people who claimed to speak for "vulnerable groups." Misconceptions about the SCR were common, especially confusion about what data it contained and who would have access to it. Most people were not interested in recording their medical data or accessing their SCR via HealthSpace, but some saw the potential for this new technology to support self management and lay care for those with chronic illness. CONCLUSION: Despite an extensive information programme in early adopter sites, the public remains unclear about current policy on shared electronic records, though most people view these as a positive development. The "implied consent" model for creating and accessing a person's SCR should be revisited, perhaps in favour of "consent to view" at the point of access.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.a114

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. BrennanS.The NHS IT project. Oxford: Radcliffe, 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenhalgh, T., Wood, G. W., Bratan, T., Stramer, K., & Hinder, S.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Greenhalgh, Trisha
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-05-29
Volume
336
Issue
7656
Pages
1290-1295
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W1977883461
Cited by
141
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
FWCI
32.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Birmingham
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
Summary Care Record, patient attitudes, shared electronic health records, health literacy, implied consent, patient information, self-management, chronic disease, vulnerable populations, limited English speakers, HIV, mental health services, drug rehabilitation, socioeconomic deprivation
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Attitude to Health, England, Family Practice, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Public Opinion, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Internet

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