↓ Skip to main content

How Bioethics Principles Can Aid Design of Electronic Health Records to Accommodate Patient Granular Control

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
How Bioethics Principles Can Aid Design of Electronic Health Records to Accommodate Patient Granular Control
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11606-014-3062-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric M. Meslin, Peter H. Schwartz

Abstract

Ethics should guide the design of electronic health records (EHR), and recognized principles of bioethics can play an important role. This approach was recently adopted by a team of informaticists who are designing and testing a system where patients exert granular control over who views their personal health information. While this method of building ethics in from the start of the design process has significant benefits, questions remain about how useful the application of bioethics principles can be in this process, especially when principles conflict. For instance, while the ethical principle of respect for autonomy supports a robust system of granular control, the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence counsel restraint due to the danger of patients being harmed by restrictions on provider access to data. Conflict between principles has long been recognized by ethicists and has even motivated attacks on approaches that state and apply principles. In this paper, we show how using ethical principles can help in the design of EHRs by first explaining how ethical principles can and should be used generally, and then by discussing how attention to details in specific cases can show that the tension between principles is not as bad as it initially appeared. We conclude by suggesting ways in which the application of these (and other) principles can add value to the ongoing discussion of patient involvement in their health care. This is a new approach to linking principles to informatics design that we expect will stimulate further interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 27%
Computer Science 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,978,562
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,149
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,936
of 366,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#65
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.