The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Personal Health Records: Evaluation of Functionality and Utility
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Web-based applications have been developed that allow patients to enter their own information into secure personal health records. These applications are being promoted as a means of providing patients and providers with universal access to updated medical information. The authors evaluated the functionality and utility of a selection of personal health records. DESIGN: A targeted search strategy was used to identify eleven Web sites promoting different personal health records. Specific criteria related to the entry and display of data elements were developed to evaluate the functionality of each PHR. Information abstracted from an actual case was used to create a series of representative PHRs. Output generated for review was evaluated to assess the accuracy and completeness of clinical information related to the diagnosis and treatment of specific disorders. RESULTS: The PHRs selected for review employed data entry methods that limited the range and content of patient-entered information related to medical history, medications, laboratory tests, diagnostic studies, and immunizations. Representative PHRs created with information abstracted from an actual case displayed varying amounts of information at basic and comprehensive levels of representation. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available PHRs demonstrate limited functionality. The data entry, validation, and information display methods they employ may limit their utility as representations of medical information.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
KOH, L. K. H., GREENSPAN, F. S., & YEO, P. P. B. (1997) · Thyroid · doi:10.1089/thy.1997.7.891 · Cited by 185
Cited by
Personal health records: a scoping review
Archer, N., Fevrier-Thomas, U., Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., & Straus, S. E. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000105 · Cited by 573
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501
eHealth Trends in Europe 2005-2007: A Population-Based Survey
Kummervold, P. E., Chronaki, C. E., Lausen, B., Prokosch, H.-U., Rasmussen, J., Santana, S., Staniszewski, A., & Wangberg, S. C. (2008) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1023 · Cited by 449
Integrated Personal Health Records: Transformative Tools for Consumer-Centric Care
Detmer, D., Bloomrosen, M., Raymond, B., & Tang, P. (2008) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-8-45 · Cited by 420
Haverhals, L. M., Lee, C. A., Siek, K. A., Darr, C. A., Linnebur, S. A., Ruscin, J. M., & Ross, S. E. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1813 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, M. I.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-03-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 171-180
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- OpenAlex
- W2615764961
- Cited by
- 251
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Personal Health Records: Evaluation of Functionality and Utility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m0978
- The paper
- Kim, M. I. (2002). Personal Health Records: Evaluation of Functionality and Utility. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m0978
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.
