Display options
Cite
Bratan T, Stramer K, Greenhalgh T. 'Never heard of it'- understanding the public's lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record. Health Expect. 2010;13(4):379-91doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x.
Bratan, T., Stramer, K., & Greenhalgh, T. (2010). 'Never heard of it'- understanding the public's lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 13(4), 379-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x
Bratan, Tanja, et al. "'Never heard of it'- understanding the public's lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record." Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy vol. 13,4 (2010): 379-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x
Bratan T, Stramer K, Greenhalgh T. 'Never heard of it'- understanding the public's lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record. Health Expect. 2010 Dec;13(4):379-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x. PMID: 20579117; PMCID: PMC5060545.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Health Expect. 2010 Dec;13(4):379-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x.

'Never heard of it'- understanding the public's lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record.

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy

Tanja Bratan, Katja Stramer, Trisha Greenhalgh

Affiliations

  1. Research Department of Open Learning, Division of Medical Education, University College London, London, UK. [email protected]

PMID: 20579117 PMCID: PMC5060545 DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00608.x

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of electronic patient records that are accessible by multiple providers raises security issues and requires informed consent - or at the very least, an opportunity to opt out. Introduction of the Summary Care Record (SCR) (a centrally stored electronic summary of a patient's medical record) in pilot sites in the UK was associated with low awareness, despite an intensive public information programme that included letters, posters, leaflets, and road shows.

AIM: To understand why the public information programme had limited impact and to learn lessons for future programmes.

METHODS: Linguistic and communications analysis of components of the programme, contextualized within a wider mixed-method case study of the introduction of the SCR in pilot sites. Theoretical insights from linguistics and communication studies were applied.

RESULTS: The context of the SCR pilots and the linked information programme created inherent challenges which were partially but not fully overcome by the efforts of campaigners. Much effort was put into designing the content of a mail merge letter, but less attention was given to its novelty, linguistic style, and rhetorical appeal. Many recipients viewed this letter as junk mail or propaganda and discarded it unread. Other components of the information programme were characterized by low visibility, partly because only restricted areas were participating in the pilot. Relatively little use was made of interpersonal communication channels.

CONCLUSION: Despite ethical and legal imperatives, informed consent for the introduction of shared electronic records may be difficult to achieve through public information campaigns. Success may be more likely if established principles of effective mass and interpersonal communication are applied.

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

References

  1. BMJ. 2007 Jul 7;335(7609):24-7 - PubMed
  2. Milbank Q. 2009 Dec;87(4):729-88 - PubMed
  3. Med J Aust. 2008 Nov 17;189(S10):S29-32 - PubMed
  4. Public Health. 2005 Nov;119(11):1003-10 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2004 Apr 10;328(7444):875-8 - PubMed
  6. Health Educ Q. 1980 Summer;7(2):127-47 - PubMed
  7. BMJ. 2008 Jun 7;336(7656):1290-5 - PubMed
  8. BMJ. 2003 May 10;326(7397):1039 - PubMed
  9. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996 Mar-Apr;3(2):139-48 - PubMed
  10. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999 Spring;15(2):316-31 - PubMed
  11. Annu Rev Public Health. 1995;16:219-38 - PubMed
  12. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Dec;16(6):404-8 - PubMed
  13. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Feb 12;7:18 - PubMed
  14. Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Mar;74(3):347-55 - PubMed
  15. Geriatrics. 2006 Mar;61(3):30-4 - PubMed
  16. J Health Commun. 1996 Jul-Sep;1(3):267-83 - PubMed
  17. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009 Jun;21(3):386-96 - PubMed
  18. Int J Med Inform. 2007 May-Jun;76(5-6):402-6 - PubMed
  19. CMAJ. 1996 Mar 15;154(6):835-40 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 2004 Apr 10;328(7444):871-4 - PubMed
  21. J Health Commun. 1998 Jan-Mar;3(1):17-28 - PubMed
  22. Lancet. 2009 Jun 27;373(9682):2234-46 - PubMed
  23. Nurs Older People. 2006 Jul;18(6):10-1 - PubMed
  24. Health Educ Behav. 1998 Oct;25(5):545-63 - PubMed
  25. Health Expect. 2008 Jun;11(2):113-22 - PubMed
  26. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Apr;47(2):127-33 - PubMed
  27. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997 May-Jun;4(3):213-21 - PubMed
  28. Int J Med Inform. 2004 Mar 31;73(3):229-34 - PubMed
  29. BMJ. 2008 Oct 23;337:a1786 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support