title: Patient and public views on electronic health records and their uses in the United kingdom: cross-sectional survey.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The development and implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) remains an international challenge. Better understanding of patient and public attitudes and the factors that influence overall levels of support toward EHRs is needed to inform policy.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To explore patient and public attitudes toward integrated EHRs used simultaneously for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional questionnaire survey administered to patients and members of the public who were recruited from a stratified cluster random sample of 8 outpatient clinics of a major teaching hospital and 8 general practices in London (United Kingdom).
  
  
  RESULTS
  5331 patients and members of the public responded to the survey, with 2857 providing complete data for the analysis presented here. There were moderately high levels of support for integrated EHRs used simultaneously for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research (1785/2857, 62.47%), while 27.93% (798/2857) of participants reported being undecided about whether or not they would support EHR use. There were higher levels of support for specific uses of EHRs. Most participants were in favor of EHRs for personal health care provision (2563/2857, 89.71%), with 66.75% (1907/2857) stating that they would prefer their complete, rather than limited, medical history to be included. Of those "undecided" about integrated EHRs, 87.2% (696/798) were nevertheless in favor of sharing their full (373/798, 46.7%) or limited (323/798, 40.5%) records for health provision purposes. There were similar high levels of support for use of EHRs in health services policy and planning (2274/2857, 79.59%) and research (2325/2857, 81.38%), although 59.75% (1707/2857) and 67.10% (1917/2857) of respondents respectively would prefer their personal identifiers to be removed. Multivariable analysis showed levels of overall support for EHRs decreasing with age. Respondents self-identifying as Black British were more likely to report being undecided or unsupportive of national EHRs. Frequent health services users were more likely to report being supportive than undecided.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite previous difficulties with National Health Service (NHS) technology projects, patients and the public generally support the development of integrated EHRs for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research. This support, however, varies between social groups and is not unqualified; relevant safeguards must be in place and patients should be guided in their decision-making process, including increased awareness about the benefits of EHRs for secondary uses.
authors: NIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
authors: Serena A
authors: SA
authors: Luchenski
authors: Julie E
authors: JE
authors: Reed
authors: Cicely
authors: C
authors: Marston
authors: Chrysanthi
authors: C
authors: Papoutsi
authors: Azeem
authors: A
authors: Majeed
authors: Derek
authors: D
authors: Bell
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001290:Attitude; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003625:Data Collection; D006801:Humans; D016347:Medical Records Systems, Computerized; D008875:Middle Aged; D010361:Patients / Q000523:psychology*; D017150:Public Sector; D006113:United Kingdom; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: electronic health records; health care delivery; patient attitudes; policy; research
references: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 May 23;12:40
references: 22621621
references: Med J Aust. 2011 Jan 17;194(2):90-2
references: 21241224
references: J Law Med Ethics. 2003 Fall;31(3):429-33
references: 14626550
references: BMJ. 2008 Jun 7;336(7656):1290-5
references: 18511764
references: BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1068-72
references: 16648132
references: Health Stat Q. 2004 Spring;(21):5-14
references: 15615148
references: Ann Intern Med. 2011 Dec 20;155(12):805-10
references: 22184687
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Dec;16(6):404-8
references: 18055882
references: J Med Internet Res. 2009 Aug 06;11(3):e30
references: 19674960
references: J Med Ethics. 2011 Jan;37(1):50-5
references: 21071570
references: Arch Intern Med. 2002 Nov 25;162(21):2458-63
references: 12437405
references: BMC Med. 2011 Apr 28;9:46
references: 21524315
references: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 May 22;12:39
references: 22616619
references: J Med Internet Res. 2005 Mar 14;7(1):e4
references: 15829476
references: J Med Internet Res. 2013 Apr 04;15(4):e70
references: 23557596
references: Inform Prim Care. 2006;14(1):55-7
references: 16848967
references: BMC Med Ethics. 2008 Nov 19;9:18
references: 19019239
references: BMJ. 2011 Oct 17;343:d6054
references: 22006942
references: Int J Med Inform. 2006 Jul;75(7):530-41
references: 16198142
references: Med Sci Monit. 2004 Nov;10(11):SR17-22
references: 15507869
references: Ann Epidemiol. 2002 May;12(4):248-56
references: 11988413