Sharing Clinical Notes and Electronic Health Records With People Affected by Mental Health Conditions: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly implemented internationally, whereas digital sharing of EHRs with service users (SUs) is a relatively new practice. Studies of patient-accessible EHRs (PAEHRs)-often referred to as open notes-have revealed promising results within general medicine settings. However, studies carried out in mental health care (MHC) settings highlight several ethical and practical challenges that require further exploration. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to map available evidence on PAEHRs in MHC. We seek to relate findings with research from other health contexts, to compare different stakeholders' perspectives, expectations, actual experiences with PAEHRs, and identify potential research gaps. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was performed using 6 electronic databases. Studies that focused on the digital sharing of clinical notes or EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions up to September 2021 were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews guided narrative synthesis and reporting of findings. RESULTS: Of the 1034 papers screened, 31 were included in this review. The studies used mostly qualitative methods or surveys and were predominantly published after 2018 in the United States. PAEHRs were examined in outpatient (n=29) and inpatient settings (n=11), and a third of all research was conducted in Veterans Affairs Mental Health. Narrative synthesis allowed the integration of findings according to the different stakeholders. First, SUs reported mainly positive experiences with PAEHRs, such as increased trust in their clinician, health literacy, and empowerment. Negative experiences were related to inaccurate notes, disrespectful language use, or uncovering of undiscussed diagnoses. Second, for health care professionals, concerns outweigh the benefits of sharing EHRs, including an increased clinical burden owing to more documentation efforts and possible harm triggered by reading the notes. Third, care partners gained a better understanding of their family members' mental problems and were able to better support them when they had access to their EHR. Finally, policy stakeholders and experts addressed ethical challenges and recommended the development of guidelines and trainings to better prepare both clinicians and SUs on how to write and read notes. CONCLUSIONS: PAEHRs in MHC may strengthen user involvement, patients' autonomy, and shift medical treatment to a coproduced process. Acceptance issues among health care professionals align with the findings from general health settings. However, the corpus of evidence on digital sharing of EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions is limited. Above all, further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and implementation of this sociotechnical intervention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".