DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online · National patient survey

New publication about age-related variations in the use of patient accessible electronic health records

Around two months ago a new journal paper was published where I was one of the co-authors. The paper belongs to the quite large set of papers that are based on the national patient survey that I have been referring to multiple times in this blog. The title of this new paper is “Technological and informational frames: explaining age-related variation in the use of patient accessible electronic health records as technology and information” and it was published in the journal Information Technology & People.

In this paper we are comparing responses from the different age-groups Young (< 51 years), Older adults (51-66 years) and Elderly (>66 years), to investigate how the preference and use of patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) and PAEHR information differ between them. We are also bringing in the theory of technological frames for the analysis. My DOME consortium colleague Isto Huvila is the main author and the other co-authors are Åsa Cajander, Heidi Enwald, Kristina Eriksson-Backa and Hanife Rexhepi.

The paper was published Open Access and you can find it here. You can find the abstract below. To recap, these are the national survey articles published prior to this one (follow the links to reach the Open Access articles):

And, last, here is the abstract from the most recently published article:

Purpose – Data from a national patient survey (N 5 1,155) of the Swedish PAEHR “Journalen” users were analysed, and an extended version of the theory of technological frames was developed to explain the variation in the technological and informational framing of information technologies found in the data.

Design/methodology/approach – Patient Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHRs) are implemented globally to address challenges with an ageing population. However, firstly, little is known about age-related variation in PAEHR use, and secondly, user perceptions of the PAEHR technology and the health record information and how the technology and information–related perceptions are linked to each other. The purpose of this study is to investigate these two under-studied aspects of PAEHRs and propose a framework based on the theory of technological frames to support studying the second aspect, i.e. the interplay of information and technology–related perceptions.

Findings – The results suggest that younger respondents were more likely to be interested in PAEHR contents for general interest. However, they did not value online access to the information as high as older ones. Older respondents were instead inclined to use medical records information to understand their health condition, prepare for visits, become involved in their own healthcare and think that technology has a much potential. Moreover, the oldest respondents were more likely to consider the information in PAEHRs useful and aimed for them but to experience the technology as inherently difficult to use.

Research limitations/implications – The sample excludes non-users and is not a representative sample of the population of Sweden. However, although the data contain an unknown bias, there are no specific reasons to believe that it would differently affect the survey’s age groups.

Practical implications – Age should be taken into account as a key factor that influences perceptions of the usefulness of PAEHRs. It is also crucial to consider separately patients’ views of PAEHRs as a technology and of the information contained in the EHR when developing and evaluating existing and future systems and information provision for patients.

Social implications – This study contributes to bridging the gap between information behaviour and systems design research by showing how the theory of technological frames complemented with parallel informational frames to provide a potentially powerful framework for elucidating distinct conceptualisations of (information) technologies and the information they mediate. The empirical findings show how information and information technology needs relating to PAEHRs vary according to age. In contrast to the assumptions  inmuch of the earlier work, they need to be addressed separately.

Originality/value – Few earlier studies focus on (1) age-related variation in PAEHR use and (2) user perceptions of the PAEHR technology and the health record information and how the technology and information–related perceptions are linked to each other.

conference · DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online

Conference paper selected for a special issue in medical journal!

Quite a lot of things have been going on in parallel lately, especially related to research, and because of this I actually forgot to update this blog during the last few months. I will now restart the blog again by presenting some good news related to publications.

In September last year Hanife Rexhepi and I presented our paper “Do you want to receive bad news through your patient accessible electronic health record? A national survey on receiving bad news in an era of digital health” at the 18th International Symposium for Health Information Management Research (ISHIMR 2020). We wrote the paper together with our DOME consortium colleagues Isto Huvila and Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt (see blog image above). Around two months ago the first author, Hanife, received an email from the ISHIMR 2020 programme committee revealing that our paper had actually been among the top rated papers in the peer-review process and as a result of this it had been selected for inclusion in a journal special issue! This is actually the first time that a conference contribution I have been working with has been rewarded like this. It is, however, not the first time for Hanife. She has not only managed to get conference contributions selected for special issues during earlier versions of ISHIMR (as first author), but she also got two papers selected for a special issue this year!

Since we are now dealing with a journal publication the demands are of course higher and there will be at least one new round of peer-review that most probably will result in demands for revisions. We are currently waiting to hear from the journal editor after the first round of peer-review. After final acceptance I will tell you more about the journal, the special issue and of course the paper itself.