Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 136

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Engaging patients through open notes: an evaluation using mixed methods

Esch, Tobias, Mejilla, Roanne, Anselmo, Melissa, Podtschaske, Beatrice, Delbanco, Tom, Walker, Jan·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: (A) To gain insights into the experiences of patients invited to view their doctors’ visit notes, with a focus on those who review multiple notes; (B) to examine the relationships among fully transparent electronic medical records and quality of care, the patient-doctor relationship, patient engagement, self-care, self-management skills and clinical outcomes. Design: Mixed methods qualitative study: analyses of survey data, including content analysis of free-text answers, and quantitative-descriptive measures combined with semistructured individual interviews, patient activation measures, and member checks. Setting: Greater Boston, USA. Participants: Patients cared for by primary care physicians (PCPs) at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center who had electronic access to their PCP visit notes. Among those submitting surveys, 576 free-text answers were identified and analysed (414 from female patients, 162 from male patients; 23–88 years). In addition, 13 patients (9 female, 4 male; 58–87 years) were interviewed. Results: Patient experiences indicate improved understanding (of health information), better relationships (with doctors), better quality (adherence and compliance; keeping track) and improved self-care (patient-centredness, empowerment). Patients want more doctors to offer access to their notes, and some wish to contribute to their generation. Those patients with repeated experience reviewing notes express fewer concerns and more perceived benefits. Conclusions: As the use of fully transparent medical records spreads, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of possible benefits or harms, and to characterise target populations that may require varying modes of delivery. Patient desires for expansion of this practice extend to specialty care and settings beyond the physician's office. Patients are also interested in becoming involved actively in the generation of their medical records. The OpenNotes movement may increase patient activation and engagement in important ways.

Overview

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/bmjopen-2015-010034

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. 10.1197/jamia.M1147 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.3109/02813439709035024 · DOI
  3. 10.1097/00005650-198204000-00008 · DOI
  4. 10.1056/NEJM197309272891311 · DOI
  5. Delbanco, 2011, Patients should have easier access to their doctors’ medical notes, Mod Healthc, 41, 22
  6. 10.1197/jamia.M1005 · DOI
  7. Goldberg, 1998, Internet access to patients’ records, Lancet, 351, 1811, 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78772-9 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)78772-9
  8. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-12-201112200-00010 · DOI
  9. 10.1056/NEJMp0801736 · DOI
  10. 10.1056/NEJMsa0802005 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1086 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Joseph, 2014, HITECH spurs EHR vendor competition and innovation, resulting in increased adoption, Am J Manag Care, 20, 734
  13. 10.1503/cmaj.140834 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.140834
  14. 10.1007/s11606-009-0906-z · DOI
  15. 10.1136/bmj.292.6520.578 · DOI
  16. Steiner, 1978, Patient access to the medical record: a study of physician attitudes, Med Rec News, 49, 77
  17. Britten, 1991, Consultant's and patient's views about patient access to their general practice records, J R Soc Med, 85, 284, 10.1177/014107689108400513 · DOI
  18. Fisher, 1993, Patient access to records: expectations of hospital doctors and experiences of cancer patients, Br J Gen Pract, 43, 52
  19. 10.1177/0894318409337026 · doi:10.1177/0894318409337026
  20. 10.1056/NEJMp0810264 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s11060-013-1333-x · DOI
  22. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070913 · DOI
  23. Dhanireddy, 2014, The urban underserved: attitudes towards gaining full access to electronic medical records, Health Expect, 17, 724, 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00799.x · DOI
  24. 10.1097/00005650-198604000-00004 · DOI
  25. Bronson, 1978, Patient education through record sharing, QRB Qual Rev Bull, 4, 2
  26. Maly, 1999, A randomized controlled trial of facilitating information giving to patients with chronic medical conditions: effects on outcomes of care, J Fam Pract, 48, 356
  27. 10.2196/jmir.6.2.e12 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1136/bmj.39279.482963.AD · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1159 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.7326/M13-1798 · DOI
  31. 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000580 · DOI
  32. 10.1097/00005650-198101000-00012 · DOI
  33. 10.1002/jhm.2052 · DOI
  34. Institute of Medicine: Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm. A new health system for the 21st century. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
  35. 10.1055/s-0028-1109193 · doi:10.1055/s-0028-1109193
  36. Mold, 2012, The provision and impact of online patient access to their electronic health records (EHR) and transactional services on the quality and safety in health care: systematic review protocol, Inform Prim Care, 20, 271
  37. Bjoernes, 2012, A dialogue-based Web application enhances personalized access to healthcare professionals—an intervention study, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 12, 96, 10.1186/1472-6947-12-96 · DOI
  38. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-12-201112200-00002 · DOI
  39. Zulman, 2012, Access to the Medical Record, Ann Intern Med, 156, 668, 10.7326/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00016 · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00016
  40. 10.7326/0003-4819-153-2-201007200-00008 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-12-201112200-00003 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1136/bmj.g7785 · DOI
  43. 10.7326/0003-4819-157-7-201210020-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.2196/jmir.2356 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Nazi, 2015, VA OpenNotes: exploring the experiences of early patient adopters with access to clinical notes, J Am Med Infirm Assoc, 22, 380, 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003144 · DOI
  46. Weinert C . Giving Doctor's Daily Progress Notes to Hospitalized Patients and Families to Improve Patient Experience. Am J Med Qual 2015. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1177/1062860615610424 · DOI
  47. Wright, 2015, Sharing Physician Notes Through An Electronic Portal is Associated With Improved Medication Adherence: Quasi-Experimental Study, J Med Internet Res, 10, e226, 10.2196/jmir.4872 · DOI
  48. Crabtree BF , Miller WL , eds. Doing qualitative research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999.
  49. 10.1001/jama.284.4.478 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Shenton, 2004, Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects, Educ Inform, 22, 63, 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1370/afm.104 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Miller WL , Crabtree BF . Clinical research: a multimethod typology and qualitative roadmap. In: Crabtree BF , Miller WL , eds. Doing qualitative research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999:3–30.
  53. Addison RB . A grounded hermeneutic editing approach. In: Crabtree BF , Miller WL , eds. Doing qualitative research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999:145–62.
  54. Borkan J . Immersion/Crystallization. In: Crabtree BF , Miller WL , eds. Doing qualitative research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999:179–94.
  55. Gilchrist VJ , Williams RL . Key informant interviews. In: Crabtree BF , Miller WL , eds. Doing qualitative research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999:71–88.
  56. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x · DOI · Paper page
  57. Pyper, 2004, Patients’ experiences when accessing their on-line electronic patient records in primary care, Br J Gen Pract, 54, 38
  58. Honeyman, 2005, Potential impacts of patients access to their electronic records, Inform Primary Care, 13, 55
  59. 10.1097/00004479-200701000-00005 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.1007/s11606-013-2407-3 · DOI
  61. 10.1001/jama.2014.1824 · DOI
  62. 10.1056/NEJMp1310132 · DOI
  63. 10.1056/NEJMp0805631 · DOI
  64. 10.7326/M14-2128 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Balogh EP , Miller BT , Ball JR , eds. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington DC: The National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press, 2015. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 136

Metadata

Authors
Esch, T., Mejilla, R., Anselmo, M., Podtschaske, B., Delbanco, T., & Walker, J.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
e010034
ISSN
2044-6055
Cited by
136
References
13
Language
en

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Engaging patients through open notes: an evaluation using mixed methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010034
The paper
Esch, T., Mejilla, R., Anselmo, M., Podtschaske, B., Delbanco, T., & Walker, J. (2016). Engaging patients through open notes: an evaluation using mixed methods. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010034

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.