↓ Skip to main content

The use of electronic patient records for medical research: conflicts and contradictions

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
The use of electronic patient records for medical research: conflicts and contradictions
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0783-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Stevenson

Abstract

The use of electronic patient records for medical research is extremely topical. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CRPD), the English NHS observational data and interventional research service, was launched in April 2012. The CPRD has access to, and facilities to link, many healthcare related datasets. The CPRD is partially based on learning from the Health Research Support Service (HRSS), which was used to test the technical and practical aspects of downloading and linking electronic patient records for research. Questions around the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and integrating the processes necessary to enable electronic patient records to be used for the purposes of research remain. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with a total of 50 patients and 7 staff from the two English GP practices involved in piloting the HRSS, supplemented with 11 interviews with key stakeholders. Emergent themes were mapped on to the constructs of normalization process theory (NPT) to consider the ways in which sense was made of the work of implementing and integrating the HRSS. The NPT analysis demonstrated a lack of commitment to, and engagement with, the HRSS on the part of patients, whilst the commitment of doctors and practice staff was to some extent mitigated by concerns about issues of governance and consent, particularly in relation to downloading electronic patient records with associated identifiers. Although the CPRD is presented as a benign, bureaucratic process, perceptions by patients and staff of inherent contradictions with centrally held values of information governance and consent in downloading and linking electronic patient records for research remains a barrier to implementation. It is likely that conclusions reached about the problems of balancing the contradictions inherent in sharing what can be perceived as a private resource for the public good are globally transferrable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Malaysia 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 89 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 25 27%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Engineering 7 8%
Computer Science 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 19 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 April 2015.
All research outputs
#5,277,242
of 19,208,681 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,523
of 6,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,165
of 235,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,208,681 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 235,286 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them