↓ Skip to main content

Designing Patient-Centered Personal Health Records (PHRs): Health Care Professionals’ Perspective on Patient-Generated Data

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
Title
Designing Patient-Centered Personal Health Records (PHRs): Health Care Professionals’ Perspective on Patient-Generated Data
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10916-012-9861-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Huba, Yan Zhang

Abstract

Currently, patients not only want access to various medical records their health care providers keep about them, but they also are willing to become active participants in managing their own health information and the health information of the ones they care for. Personal health records were developed to help fulfill this need. Health care professionals are instrumental in the successful adoption of PHRs. Nevertheless, a full understanding of different health care practitioners' views of PHRs, including how PHRs could fit into the existing health care system, is lacking. The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate PHRs from the perspective of health care professionals. Twenty-one practitioners with 10 different specialties were interviewed. The results suggest that although PHRs were still a novel concept to the study participants, a majority of them did value information provided by patients and would recommend that patients keep such records. Participants with different specialties tended to look for different types of information to be included in PHRs, and wished the information to be presented in ways that supported their work, as well as supported knowledge discovery. The participants also expressed a need to share patient information, but had various concerns about sharing. The implications of the results of the study in regard to the design of future PHR systems are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 5%
Canada 3 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 176 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 22%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 10 5%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 29 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 53 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 22%
Social Sciences 18 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 34 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,247,248
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#657
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,753
of 165,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 165,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.