Systematic review on the use of patient-held health records in low-income and middle-income countries

Linju Joseph; Anna Lavis; Sheila Greenfield; Dona Boban; Claire Humphries; Prinu Jose; Panniyammakal Jeemon; Semira Manaseki-Holland

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046965

Systematic review on the use of patient-held health records in low-income and middle-income countries

Linju Joseph, Anna Lavis, Sheila Greenfield, Dona Boban, Claire Humphries, Prinu Jose, Panniyammakal Jeemon, Semira Manaseki-Holland

Applied Health Research

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

75 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence on the benefit of patient-held health records (PHRs), other than maternal and child health records, for improving the availability of medical information for handover communication between healthcare providers (HCPs) and/or between HCPs and patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS: The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL databases for manuscripts without any restrictions on dates/language. Additionally, articles were located through citation checking using previous systematic reviews and a grey literature search by contacting experts, searching of the WHO website and Google Scholar.

RESULTS: Six observational studies in four LMICs met the inclusion criteria. However, no studies reported on health outcomes after using PHRs. Studies in the review reported patients' experience of carrying the records to HCPs (n=3), quality of information available to HCPs (n=1) and the utility of these records to patients (n=6) and HCPs (n=4). Most patients carry PHRs to healthcare visits. One study assessed the completeness of clinical handover information and found that only 41% (161/395) of PHRs were complete with respect to key information on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. No protocols or guidelines for HCPs were reported for use of PHRs. The HCPs perceived the use of PHRs improved medical information availability from other HCPs. From the patient perspective, PHRs functioned as documented source of information about their own condition.

CONCLUSION: Limited data on existing PHRs make their benefits for improving health outcomes in LMICs uncertain. This knowledge gap calls for research on understanding the dynamics and outcomes of PHR use by patients and HCPs and in health systems interventions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139365.

Original language	English
Article number	e046965
Number of pages	11
Journal	BMJ open
Volume	11
Issue number	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046965
Publication status	Published - 2 Sept 2021

Bibliographical note

Keywords

international health services
public health
quality in health care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Medicine(all)

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046965Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

JosephL2021SystematicFinal published version, 795 KBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

Cite this

@article{3f2835c55f21488291021eda0c5add4d,

title = "Systematic review on the use of patient-held health records in low-income and middle-income countries",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence on the benefit of patient-held health records (PHRs), other than maternal and child health records, for improving the availability of medical information for handover communication between healthcare providers (HCPs) and/or between HCPs and patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).METHODS: The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL databases for manuscripts without any restrictions on dates/language. Additionally, articles were located through citation checking using previous systematic reviews and a grey literature search by contacting experts, searching of the WHO website and Google Scholar.RESULTS: Six observational studies in four LMICs met the inclusion criteria. However, no studies reported on health outcomes after using PHRs. Studies in the review reported patients' experience of carrying the records to HCPs (n=3), quality of information available to HCPs (n=1) and the utility of these records to patients (n=6) and HCPs (n=4). Most patients carry PHRs to healthcare visits. One study assessed the completeness of clinical handover information and found that only 41% (161/395) of PHRs were complete with respect to key information on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. No protocols or guidelines for HCPs were reported for use of PHRs. The HCPs perceived the use of PHRs improved medical information availability from other HCPs. From the patient perspective, PHRs functioned as documented source of information about their own condition.CONCLUSION: Limited data on existing PHRs make their benefits for improving health outcomes in LMICs uncertain. This knowledge gap calls for research on understanding the dynamics and outcomes of PHR use by patients and HCPs and in health systems interventions.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139365.",

keywords = "international health services, public health, quality in health care",

author = "Linju Joseph and Anna Lavis and Sheila Greenfield and Dona Boban and Claire Humphries and Prinu Jose and Panniyammakal Jeemon and Semira Manaseki-Holland",

note = "{\textcopyright} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

day = "2",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046965",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

journal = "BMJ open",

issn = "2044-6055",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic review on the use of patient-held health records in low-income and middle-income countries

AU - Joseph, Linju

AU - Lavis, Anna

AU - Greenfield, Sheila

AU - Boban, Dona

AU - Humphries, Claire

AU - Jose, Prinu

AU - Jeemon, Panniyammakal

AU - Manaseki-Holland, Semira

PY - 2021/9/2

Y1 - 2021/9/2

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence on the benefit of patient-held health records (PHRs), other than maternal and child health records, for improving the availability of medical information for handover communication between healthcare providers (HCPs) and/or between HCPs and patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).METHODS: The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL databases for manuscripts without any restrictions on dates/language. Additionally, articles were located through citation checking using previous systematic reviews and a grey literature search by contacting experts, searching of the WHO website and Google Scholar.RESULTS: Six observational studies in four LMICs met the inclusion criteria. However, no studies reported on health outcomes after using PHRs. Studies in the review reported patients' experience of carrying the records to HCPs (n=3), quality of information available to HCPs (n=1) and the utility of these records to patients (n=6) and HCPs (n=4). Most patients carry PHRs to healthcare visits. One study assessed the completeness of clinical handover information and found that only 41% (161/395) of PHRs were complete with respect to key information on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. No protocols or guidelines for HCPs were reported for use of PHRs. The HCPs perceived the use of PHRs improved medical information availability from other HCPs. From the patient perspective, PHRs functioned as documented source of information about their own condition.CONCLUSION: Limited data on existing PHRs make their benefits for improving health outcomes in LMICs uncertain. This knowledge gap calls for research on understanding the dynamics and outcomes of PHR use by patients and HCPs and in health systems interventions.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139365.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence on the benefit of patient-held health records (PHRs), other than maternal and child health records, for improving the availability of medical information for handover communication between healthcare providers (HCPs) and/or between HCPs and patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).METHODS: The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL databases for manuscripts without any restrictions on dates/language. Additionally, articles were located through citation checking using previous systematic reviews and a grey literature search by contacting experts, searching of the WHO website and Google Scholar.RESULTS: Six observational studies in four LMICs met the inclusion criteria. However, no studies reported on health outcomes after using PHRs. Studies in the review reported patients' experience of carrying the records to HCPs (n=3), quality of information available to HCPs (n=1) and the utility of these records to patients (n=6) and HCPs (n=4). Most patients carry PHRs to healthcare visits. One study assessed the completeness of clinical handover information and found that only 41% (161/395) of PHRs were complete with respect to key information on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. No protocols or guidelines for HCPs were reported for use of PHRs. The HCPs perceived the use of PHRs improved medical information availability from other HCPs. From the patient perspective, PHRs functioned as documented source of information about their own condition.CONCLUSION: Limited data on existing PHRs make their benefits for improving health outcomes in LMICs uncertain. This knowledge gap calls for research on understanding the dynamics and outcomes of PHR use by patients and HCPs and in health systems interventions.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139365.

KW - international health services

KW - public health

KW - quality in health care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114424688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046965

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046965

M3 - Review article

C2 - 34475153

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 11

JO - BMJ open

JF - BMJ open

IS - 9

M1 - e046965

ER -

Systematic review on the use of patient-held health records in low-income and middle-income countries

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this