↓ Skip to main content

The value of connected health information: perceptions of electronic health record users in Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 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 value of connected health information: perceptions of electronic health record users in Canada
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0330-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sukirtha Tharmalingam, Simon Hagens, Jennifer Zelmer

Abstract

As health care becomes more complex, it becomes more important for clinicians and patients to share information. Electronic health information exchange can help address this need. To this end, all provinces and territories (PTs) in Canada have created interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs). These secure systems offer authorized users an integrated view of a person's healthcare history across the continuum of care. They include information such as lab results, medications, diagnostic images, clinical reports and immunization profiles. This study explores user experiences and perceived outcomes of iEHR use. Surveys conducted between 2006 and 2014 asked iEHR users in six Canadian PTs about system, information and service quality; iEHR use and user satisfaction; and net quality and productivity benefits. The surveys had a core set of questions that used Likert-type scales. Results were synthesized across surveys for each evaluative dimension. Consensus among researchers and subject matter experts on whether to classify the outcomes as positive, mixed/neutral, or negative was established using a modified Delphi technique. A total of 2316 iEHR users responded to the six surveys. Information quality was the most studied area. Results varied across PTs, but positive outcomes were more common than mixed/neutral or negative outcomes by a 19:1:1 ratio across this dimension. The next most frequently studied aspects were user satisfaction, the impact of iEHR use on quality of care, and the impact on productivity. In all three areas, there were more positive than mixed/neutral or /negative results (ratios of 13:1:1, 14:3:1, and 15:2:1respectively). Overall, users of iEHRs that provide secure access to patient information collated from across the health system tend to report positive outcomes, including quality of care and productivity. This study is an important first step in understanding user perspectives on iEHRs and health information exchange more broadly.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 177 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 36 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 23 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 11%
Computer Science 19 11%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 45 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,534,531
of 24,312,464 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#723
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,208
of 363,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#21
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,312,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 363,470 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 53% of its contemporaries.