↓ Skip to main content

Patient and public views about the security and privacy of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
290 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
Patient and public views about the security and privacy of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0202-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Julie E. Reed, Cicely Marston, Ruth Lewis, Azeem Majeed, Derek Bell

Abstract

Although policy discourses frame integrated Electronic Health Records (EHRs) as essential for contemporary healthcare systems, increased information sharing often raises concerns among patients and the public. This paper examines patient and public views about the security and privacy of EHRs used for health provision, research and policy in the UK. Sequential mixed methods study with a cross-sectional survey (in 2011) followed by focus group discussions (in 2012-2013). Survey participants (N = 5331) were recruited from primary and secondary care settings in West London (UK). Complete data for 2761 (51.8 %) participants were included in the final analysis for this paper. The survey results were discussed in 13 focus groups with people living with a range of different health conditions, and in 4 mixed focus groups with patients, health professionals and researchers (total N = 120). Qualitative data were analysed thematically. In the survey, 79 % of participants reported that they would worry about the security of their record if this was part of a national EHR system and 71 % thought the National Health Service (NHS) was unable to guarantee EHR safety at the time this work was carried out. Almost half (47 %) responded that EHRs would be less secure compared with the way their health record was held at the time of the survey. Of those who reported being worried about EHR security, many would nevertheless support their development (55 %), while 12 % would not support national EHRs and a sizeable proportion (33 %) were undecided. There were also variations by age, ethnicity and education. In focus group discussions participants weighed up perceived benefits against potential security and privacy threats from wider sharing of information, as well as discussing other perceived risks: commercial exploitation, lack of accountability, data inaccuracies, prejudice and inequalities in health provision. Patient and public worries about the security risks associated with integrated EHRs highlight the need for intensive public awareness and engagement initiatives, together with the establishment of trustworthy security and privacy mechanisms for health information sharing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
United States 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Unknown 284 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 12%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 85 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 18%
Computer Science 36 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Social Sciences 25 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 4%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 93 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,981,773
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#103
of 2,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,758
of 291,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 291,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.