↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes toward inter-hospital electronic patient record exchange: discrepancies among physicians, medical record staff, and patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Attitudes toward inter-hospital electronic patient record exchange: discrepancies among physicians, medical record staff, and patients
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0896-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jong-Yi Wang, Hsiao-Yun Ho, Jen-De Chen, Sinkuo Chai, Chih-Jaan Tai, Yung-Fu Chen

Abstract

In this era of ubiquitous information, patient record exchange among hospitals still has technological and individual barriers including resistance to information sharing. Most research on user attitudes has been limited to one type of user or aspect. Because few analyses of attitudes toward electronic patient records (EPRs) have been conducted, understanding the attitudes among different users in multiple aspects is crucial to user acceptance. This proof-of-concept study investigated the attitudes of users toward the inter-hospital EPR exchange system implemented nationwide and focused on discrepant behavioral intentions among three user groups. The system was designed by combining a Health Level 7-based protocol, object-relational mapping, and other medical informatics techniques to ensure interoperability in realizing patient-centered practices. After implementation, three user-specific questionnaires for physicians, medical record staff, and patients were administered, with a 70 % response rate. The instrument showed favorable convergent construct validity and internal consistency reliability. Two dependent variables were applied: the attitudes toward privacy and support. Independent variables comprised personal characteristics, work characteristics, human aspects, and technology aspects. Major statistical methods included exploratory factor analysis and general linear model. The results from 379 respondents indicated that the patients highly agreed with privacy protection by their consent and support for EPRs, whereas the physicians remained conservative toward both. Medical record staff was ranked in the middle among the three groups. The three user groups demonstrated discrepant intentions toward privacy protection and support. Experience of computer use, level of concerns, usefulness of functions, and specifically, reason to use electronic medical records and number of outpatient visits were significantly associated with the perceptions. Overall, four categories of independent variables were associated with the mean difference in the perceptions. Discrepant attitudes toward privacy and support among the three user groups are identified. Patients may require further education and communication regarding the system. Culturally fit e-Consent should be incorporated into the system to fully utilize the computing power of the Internet when also considering workload. The concern for misuse of EPRs might lead to low support among physicians. Highly readable EPR documents and managerial incentives for information exchange may improve system use.

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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 165 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Researcher 12 7%
Lecturer 8 5%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 49 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 32 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 18%
Social Sciences 17 10%
Computer Science 12 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 55 32%
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 10 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,027,062
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,791
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,520
of 265,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#69
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 265,098 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.