The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Personal Health Record Paradox: Health Care Professionals’ Perspectives and the Information Ecology of Personal Health Record Systems in Organizational and Clinical Settings
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Despite significant consumer interest and anticipated benefits, overall adoption of personal health records (PHRs) remains relatively low. Understanding the consumer perspective is necessary, but insufficient by itself. Consumer PHR use also has broad implications for health care professionals and organizational delivery systems; however, these have received less attention. An exclusive focus on the PHR as a tool for consumer empowerment does not adequately take into account the social and organizational context of health care delivery, and the reciprocal nature of patient engagement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) using an organizationally sponsored PHR to develop insights into the interaction of technology and processes of health care delivery. The conceptual framework for the study draws on an information ecology perspective, which recognizes that a vibrant dynamic exists among technologies, people, practices, and values, accounting for both the values and norms of the participants and the practices of the local setting. The study explores the experiences and perspectives of VA health care professionals related to patient use of the My HealtheVet PHR portal and secure messaging systems. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 VA health care professionals engaged in providing direct patient care who self-reported that they had experiences with at least 1 of 4 PHR features. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify inductive themes. Organizational documents and artifacts were reviewed and analyzed to trace the trajectory of secure messaging implementation as part of the VA Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) model. RESULTS: Study findings revealed a variety of factors that have facilitated or inhibited PHR adoption, use, and endorsement of patient use by health care professionals. Health care professionals' accounts and analysis of organizational documents revealed a multidimensional dynamic between the trajectory of secure messaging implementation and its impact on organizational actors and their use of technology, influencing workflow, practices, and the flow of information. In effect, secure messaging was the missing element of complex information ecology and its implementation acted as a catalyst for change. Secure messaging was found to have important consequences for access, communication, patient self-report, and patient/provider relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings have direct implications for the development and implementation of PHR systems to ensure adequate training and support for health care professionals, alignment with clinical workflow, and features that enable information sharing and communication. Study findings highlight the importance of clinician endorsement and engagement, and the need to further examine both intended and unintended consequences of use. This research provides an integral step toward better understanding the social and organizational context and impact of PHR and secure messaging use in clinical practice settings.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Permitting patients to view their medical records can be beneficial for a variety of reasons, including greater empowerment-more engagement in and understanding of their own care [10][11][12] -as well as fewer errors when patients identify mistakes that can be subsequently corrected.[13][14][15][16]”
From Patient-initiated electronic health record amendment requests (2014) · cites this paper as [13]
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
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448 · cited 1×
“Greenhalgh and colleagues [68] caution that the perceived attributes of technology are neither stable features nor sure determinants of adoption or assimilation.”
BackgroundImproving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness: The Chronic Care Model, Part 2
Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E. H., & Grumbach, K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.15.1909 · Cited by 2,413
A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies
van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., van Limburg, M., Ossebaard, H. C., Kelders, S. M., Eysenbach, G., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1672 · Cited by 1,126 · cited 1×
“Although lack of evidence about the distinct effects of PHRs and other eHealth tools on health and other outcomes persists [94], this research will be more feasible as actual use increases.”
BackgroundPatient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach
Berg, M. (1999) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(99)00011-8 · Cited by 786
Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges
Berg, M. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00200-3 · Cited by 715
Harrison, M. I., Koppel, R., & Bar-Lev, S. (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2384 · Cited by 691
A re-conceptualization of access for 21st century healthcare
Fortney, J. C., Burgess, J. F., Bosworth, H. B., Booth, B. M., & Kaboli, P. J. (2011) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1806-6 · Cited by 311
Nijland, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Kelders, S. M., Brandenburg, B. J., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1603 · Cited by 175 · cited 14×
“Background: Despite significant consumer interest and anticipated benefits, overall adoption of personal health records (PHRs) remains relatively low.”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review
Irizarry, T., DeVito Dabbs, A., & Curran, C. R. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4255 · Cited by 732
Granja, C., Janssen, W., & Johansen, M. A. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/10235 · Cited by 578
“Less addressed in the studies, but still significant barriers, were the alignment of the eHealth intervention with the clinical workflow [38,85] and staff turnover [103].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialPortz, J. D., Bayliss, E. A., Bull, S., Boxer, R. S., Bekelman, D. B., Gleason, K., & Czaja, S. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11604 · Cited by 313
Lipschitz, J., Miller, C. J., Hogan, T. P., Burdick, K. E., Lippin-Foster, R., Simon, S. R., & Burgess, J. (2019) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/11334 · Cited by 183
Laukka, E., Huhtakangas, M., Heponiemi, T., Kujala, S., Kaihlanen, A.-M., Gluschkoff, K., & Kanste, O. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/21623 · Cited by 65
“Not only was the web-based communication itself more effective but it also improved the efficiency and quality of face-to-face office visits because patients were able to communicate with professionals before the visits [42,47,48,50].”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Nazi, K. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2013-04-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e70
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053510603
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 32.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: The Personal Health Record Paradox: Health Care Professionals’ Perspectives and the Information Ecology of Personal Health Record Systems in Organizational and Clinical Settings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2196/jmir.2443
- The paper
- Nazi, K. M. (2013). The Personal Health Record Paradox: Health Care Professionals’ Perspectives and the Information Ecology of Personal Health Record Systems in Organizational and Clinical Settings. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2443
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.