MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057595476 · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-11-117

Rapid progress or lengthy process? electronic personal health records in mental health

2011· review· en· W2057595476 on OpenAlexaff
Liam Ennis, Diana Rose, Felicity Callard, Mike Denis, Til Wykes

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMental healthHealth careProcess (computing)Health recordsEmpowermentMEDLINEInternet privacyPsychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major objective of many healthcare providers is to increase patients' participation in their own care. The introduction of electronic personal health records (ePHRs) may help to achieve this. An ePHR is an electronic database of an individual's health information, accessible to and maintained by the patient. ePHRs are very much in vogue, with an increasing number of studies reporting their potential utility as well as cost. However, the vast majority of these studies focus on general healthcare. Little attempt has been made to document the specific problems which might occur throughout the implementation of ePHRs in mental health. This review identifies such concerns through an electronic search of the literature. Several potential difficulties are highlighted and addressed, including access to information technology, identifying relevant populations and the handling of sensitive information. Special attention is paid to the concept of 'empowerment' and what this means in relation to ePHRs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207