↓ Skip to main content

Early evaluation of experiences of health care providers in reception centers with a patient-held personal health record for asylum seekers: a multi-sited qualitative study in a German federal state

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Early evaluation of experiences of health care providers in reception centers with a patient-held personal health record for asylum seekers: a multi-sited qualitative study in a German federal state
Published in
Globalization and Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12992-018-0394-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosa Jahn, Sandra Ziegler, Stefan Nöst, Sandra Claudia Gewalt, Cornelia Straßner, Kayvan Bozorgmehr

Abstract

The provision of high-quality medical care to asylum seekers represents a key challenge in many countries of the European Union. Especially continuity of care has been difficult to achieve as the migrant trajectory moves asylum seekers across and within European countries. Patient-held personal health records (PHR) have been proposed to facilitate the transfer of medical history between health sectors and providers, but so far there is no data to support its use in the migrant setting. The present paper addresses this knowledge gap by exploring the experiences and practices of healthcare providers in reception centers for asylum seekers using a patient-held PHR as well as the perceived associated benefits and shortcomings. Early evaluation by means of a multi-sited qualitative study in six asylum seeker reception centers in five cities in the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, conducted between November 2016 and January 2017. The PHR evaluated in this study was implemented in five of these reception centers between February and October 2016; the remaining one only receiving patients with the PHR through transfer from the other facilities. 17 interviews were conducted with physicians and nurses working at these reception centers exploring their experiences, routines, and perspectives regarding the patient-held PHR. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed following the approach of thematic analysis. Healthcare providers recognise the potential of a patient-held PHR to improve access to medical history. They use the PHR to document their medical consultations and to collect other medical reports. However, physician adherence to the patient-held PHR was described as unsatisfactory, in particular among external doctors, thus limiting its immediate benefit. Reasons given for this low adherence included lack of information before implementation, demanding working conditions with little support, low perceived benefits depending on the degree of fragmentation of settings, parallel existence of other documentation platforms and strained patient relationships. A patient-held PHR could improve the availability of health-related information in reception centers if a context-sensitive implementation process achieves high adherence to the PHR among physicians as well as high patient compliance and includes guidelines regarding its adequate integration into local routines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Lecturer 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 44 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Psychology 8 7%
Computer Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 45 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,047,338
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#597
of 1,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,655
of 328,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#27
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 328,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.