Cited by 207Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: patient and physician experiences

Open access
Earnest, Mark A., Ross, Stephen E., Wittevrongel, Loretta, Moore, Laurie A., Lin, Chen-Tan·2004·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences of patients and physicians in a clinical trial of an online electronic medical record (SPPARO, System Providing Patients Access to Records Online). DESIGN: Quantitative data were obtained from questionnaires. Qualitative data were obtained from individual interviews and focus groups. MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaire items were based on issues identified by patients and physicians in previous studies. Individual interviews and focus groups were performed using a semistructured format developed through an iterative process. RESULTS: Of the eight physicians who participated in the trial, seven completed questionnaires and interviews. Of the 394 patients in the practice, 107 enrolled in the study, and 54 were assigned randomly to the intervention group. Of these, 41 used SPPARO during the trial period. In questionnaires and interviews, patients were significantly more likely than physicians to anticipate benefits of SPPARO and less likely to anticipate problems. Attitudes of subjects did not diverge from controls after the intervention period. In posttrial focus groups, SPPARO users described its practical benefits. Comprehending medical jargon was a minor obstacle. Physicians anticipated that implementing SPPARO might increase their workload and distort their clinical interactions. In posttrial interviews, physicians and staff reported no change in their workload and no adverse consequences. All of the physicians ultimately supported the concept of giving patients online access to their clinical notes and test results. CONCLUSION: SPPARO was useful for a number of patients. Physicians initially voiced a number of concerns about implementing SPPARO, but their experience with it was far more positive.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1479

Cites

18 of 18 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. Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple signif- icance testing. Biometrika. 1988;75:800-3.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Earnest, M. A., Ross, S. E., Wittevrongel, L., Moore, L. A., & Lin, C.-T.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Health (US)
Corresponding author
Ross, Stephen E.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2004-09
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
410-417
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2109294163
Cited by
207
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
FWCI
19.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Commonwealth Fund
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 › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
online access to medical records, congestive heart failure, patient experience, physician experience, physician workload, clinical interaction, patient-provider communication
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Focus Groups, Patient Access to 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