Evidence mapPaperPMID 40190337Full record

ArticleDigital health

Understanding public trust in national electronic health record systems: A multi-national qualitative research study.

Kimon Papadopoulos, Elske Ammenwerth, Guillaume Lame, Nina Stahl, Verena Struckmann, Viktor von Wyl, Felix Gille

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kimon PapadopoulosDigital Society Initiative (DSI), University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7623-4298
Elske AmmenwerthInstitute of Medical Informatics, UMIT TIROL Private University for Health Sciences and Technology GmbH, Hall, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3244-6918
Guillaume LameLaboratoire de Genie Industriel, Universite Paris-Saclay CentraleSupelec, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-1890
Nina StahlDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society (HES), University of Maastricht, Masstricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8141-4218
Verena StruckmannDepartment of Health Care Management, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0162-884X
Viktor von WylDigital Society Initiative (DSI), University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Felix GilleDigital Society Initiative (DSI), University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2847-4633

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Having public trust in national electronic health record systems (NEHRs) is crucial for the successful implementation and participation of NEHRs within a nations healthcare system. Yet, a lack of conceptual clarity precludes healthcare policymakers from incorporating trust to the fullest extent possible. In response, this study seeks to validate an existing framework for public trust in the healthcare system, which will help provide a clearer understanding of what constitutes public trust in NEHRs across members of the public in different countries, cultures, and contexts. Methods: Twenty-four focus groups were conducted in Austria, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland with residents of each respective country to discuss their viewpoints on our public trust in NEHRs framework in order to validate said framework. Results: Frameworks describing the causes and effects of public trust in NEHRs were created for each country studied. Across all countries, the frameworks remained similar to our base framework, highlighting our frameworks' robustness. Data security, privacy, and autonomy were consistently described as the most important aspects of public trust in NEHRs. Concurrently, health system actors, such as doctors, were found to have significant influence on NEHR implementation. Their influence, however, can either be beneficial or detrimental to public trust in NEHRs, depending on their actions and how the public perceives those actions. Additional results detail contextual insights into country-specific viewpoints and the role of healthcare stakeholders in public trust in NEHRs. The results showcase the differences and similarities in which different populations across Europe view trust in NEHRs in the context of our framework. Conclusions: These findings present public trust frameworks in the context of NEHRs for the study countries. These frameworks can assist stakeholders in obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of public trust in implementing and promoting their NEHRs, including measurements of public trust.

Indexed as

digital healtheHealthelectronic health recordEuropehealth systemsimplementationpatient dataPublic trustqualitative researchtrust

Identifiers

PMID40190337
PMCPMC11970066

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.