| Title |
Too Much or Too Little? How Much Control Should Patients Have Over EHR Data?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-016-0533-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soumitra Sudip Bhuyan, Sandra Bailey-DeLeeuw, David K. Wyant, Cyril F. Chang |
| Abstract |
Electronic health records (EHRs) have been promoted as a mechanism to overcome the fragmented healthcare system in the United States. The challenge that is being discussed is the rights of the patient to control the access to their EHRs' data and the needs of healthcare professionals to know health data to make the best treatment decisions for their patients. The Federal Trade Commission has asked those who store consumer information to comply with the Fair Information Practice Principles. In the EHR context, these principles give the rights to the patient to control who can see their health data and what components of the data are restricted from view. Control is not limited to patients, as it also includes parents of adolescent children. We suggest that the ongoing policy discussion include consideration of the precise questions patients will be asked when a need for data sharing arises. Further, patients should understand the relative risks that they face, and the degree to which their decisions will (or will not) significantly reduce the risk of a data breach. As various approaches are considered, it is important to address the relative resource requirements and the associated costs of each option. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 19 | 44% |
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 31 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,753,480
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#286
of 1,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,107
of 342,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#10
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 342,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.