关于医生对二次分析中重复使用电子健康记录数据的看法的定性研究。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Neal D Goldstein
{"title":"关于医生对二次分析中重复使用电子健康记录数据的看法的定性研究。","authors":"Neal D Goldstein","doi":"10.1177/10497323241245644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous in clinical practice. Given the rich biomedical data captured for a large panel of patients, secondary analysis of these data for health research is also commonplace. Yet, there are many caveats to EHR data that the researchers must be aware of, such as the accuracy of and motive for documentation, and the reason for patients' visits to the clinic. The clinician-the author of the documentation-is thus central to the correct interpretation of EHR data for research purposes. In this study, I interviewed 11 physicians in various clinical specialties to bring attention to their view on the validity of research using EHR data. Qualitative, in-depth, one-on-one interviews were conducted with practicing physicians in inpatient and outpatient medicine. Content analysis using a data-driven, inductive approach to identify themes related to challenges and opportunities in the reuse of EHR data for secondary analysis generated seven themes. Themes that reflected challenges of EHRs for research included (1) audience, (2) accuracy of data, (3) availability of data, (4) documentation practices, and (5) representativeness. Themes that reflected opportunities of EHRs for research included (6) endorsement and (7) enablers. The greatest perceived barriers reflected the intended audience of the EHR, the interpretation and meaning of the data, and the quality of the data for research purposes. Physicians generally expressed more perceived challenges than opportunities in the reuse of EHR data for research purposes; however, they remained optimistic.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Qualitative Study of Physicians' Views on the Reuse of Electronic Health Record Data for Secondary Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Neal D Goldstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10497323241245644\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous in clinical practice. Given the rich biomedical data captured for a large panel of patients, secondary analysis of these data for health research is also commonplace. Yet, there are many caveats to EHR data that the researchers must be aware of, such as the accuracy of and motive for documentation, and the reason for patients' visits to the clinic. The clinician-the author of the documentation-is thus central to the correct interpretation of EHR data for research purposes. In this study, I interviewed 11 physicians in various clinical specialties to bring attention to their view on the validity of research using EHR data. Qualitative, in-depth, one-on-one interviews were conducted with practicing physicians in inpatient and outpatient medicine. Content analysis using a data-driven, inductive approach to identify themes related to challenges and opportunities in the reuse of EHR data for secondary analysis generated seven themes. Themes that reflected challenges of EHRs for research included (1) audience, (2) accuracy of data, (3) availability of data, (4) documentation practices, and (5) representativeness. Themes that reflected opportunities of EHRs for research included (6) endorsement and (7) enablers. The greatest perceived barriers reflected the intended audience of the EHR, the interpretation and meaning of the data, and the quality of the data for research purposes. Physicians generally expressed more perceived challenges than opportunities in the reuse of EHR data for research purposes; however, they remained optimistic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Health Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Health Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241245644\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241245644","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

电子健康记录(EHR)在临床实践中已无处不在。鉴于为大量患者采集了丰富的生物医学数据,对这些数据进行二次分析用于健康研究也已司空见惯。然而,电子病历数据有许多注意事项是研究人员必须了解的,如记录的准确性和动机,以及患者就诊的原因。因此,临床医生--文档的作者--是正确解读电子病历数据用于研究目的的核心。在本研究中,我采访了 11 位不同临床专科的医生,以了解他们对使用电子病历数据进行研究的有效性的看法。我对住院和门诊的执业医师进行了一对一的定性深入访谈。采用数据驱动的归纳法进行内容分析,以确定与电子病历数据二次分析中的挑战和机遇有关的主题,共产生了七个主题。反映电子病历在研究中面临的挑战的主题包括:(1) 受众,(2) 数据的准确性,(3) 数据的可用性,(4) 记录方法,以及 (5) 代表性。反映电子健康记录为研究带来机遇的主题包括(6) 认可和(7) 推动因素。最大的障碍反映了电子病历的目标受众、数据的解释和意义以及用于研究目的的数据质量。在为研究目的重新使用电子病历数据方面,医生们普遍认为挑战多于机遇;不过,他们仍持乐观态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Qualitative Study of Physicians' Views on the Reuse of Electronic Health Record Data for Secondary Analysis.

Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous in clinical practice. Given the rich biomedical data captured for a large panel of patients, secondary analysis of these data for health research is also commonplace. Yet, there are many caveats to EHR data that the researchers must be aware of, such as the accuracy of and motive for documentation, and the reason for patients' visits to the clinic. The clinician-the author of the documentation-is thus central to the correct interpretation of EHR data for research purposes. In this study, I interviewed 11 physicians in various clinical specialties to bring attention to their view on the validity of research using EHR data. Qualitative, in-depth, one-on-one interviews were conducted with practicing physicians in inpatient and outpatient medicine. Content analysis using a data-driven, inductive approach to identify themes related to challenges and opportunities in the reuse of EHR data for secondary analysis generated seven themes. Themes that reflected challenges of EHRs for research included (1) audience, (2) accuracy of data, (3) availability of data, (4) documentation practices, and (5) representativeness. Themes that reflected opportunities of EHRs for research included (6) endorsement and (7) enablers. The greatest perceived barriers reflected the intended audience of the EHR, the interpretation and meaning of the data, and the quality of the data for research purposes. Physicians generally expressed more perceived challenges than opportunities in the reuse of EHR data for research purposes; however, they remained optimistic.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信