| Title |
Patient Preferences in Controlling Access to Their Electronic Health Records: a Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-3054-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter H. Schwartz, Kelly Caine, Sheri A. Alpert, Eric M. Meslin, Aaron E. Carroll, William M. Tierney |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have measured individuals' willingness to share personal information stored in electronic health records (EHRs) with health care providers, but none has measured preferences among patients when they are allowed to determine the parameters of provider access. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 15 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Guinea | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 67% |
| Scientists | 11 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 94 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 21% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 10 October 2020.
All research outputs
#666,425
of 24,598,501 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#542
of 7,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,459
of 370,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#13
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,598,501 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 370,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.