Talk:Personal health record
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|This article is/was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): HanGolfs.|
The article, as it stands, seems to ignore the types of PHRs that are integrated with EHRs. For instance, a hospital that uses an Epic EHR system might also install MyChart for patients. So-called patient portals like MyChart give patients a view of their personal health information stored in the EHR. Many consider these patient portals to also be PHRs, though this is debatable. Should we add this type?
I also wonder if we shouldn't change the first sentence of the article. PHRs aren't always 'created' by the patient. If we include patient portals as PHRs, then it's obvious that some PHRs are 'created' by an entity other than the patient. Even if we exclude patient portals, some PHRs allow importation of data from other systems. Thus, saying that the patient 'creates' the PHR isn't entirely accurate.
Vitamin D 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone has twice advertised "Global Lifeguard" as a "good example" of a PHR on this page. Twice I've removed it. Is someone being naughty or can you make an argument why that is a valid change to the page?
Vitamin D 17:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I apparently did something wrong. I added a section on PHR products with a link to MyPHR.com. I also added a reference to my product (Not the Global Lifeguard). When I have researched other topics on Wikipedia I have found it useful to know what products implement or provide such services. Even just a name would be useful. As a consumer I would think at least a link to myPHR.com would be beneficial. Many people searching for a personal health record don't just want to know what it is but where they can find one. The section I added was removed.
Pauldaly 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I see the External link reference. I do disagree about the directory comment though. I use Wikipedia often and find many products and services where I can not find them easily elsewhere on the Internet. Thank you for leaving the MyPHR link available though.
Cheers Pauldaly 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Too many references
I think there are too many journal articles/etc. Anyone knowledgeable care to pare it down to the essential literature on the subject? We don't need to cite every paper ever written about PHRs. --Karl.brown (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"Privacy and Ethical Concerns" section
I edited this section in an attempt to make it more neutral. I also marked some places that need citations. In general, this section needs significantly more citations, and should be checked by someone more knowledgeable on this subject to make sure that there isn't any original research. TheNewKarl (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
"Government eHealth PHR" section
The article provides a good overview of Personal Health Records. I would be interested to know if you would consider including the personally controlled electronic health record system managed by the Australian Government - eHealth. The eHealth record system came into effect on the 1st July 2012 and allows individuals to control their eHealth record whilst having the security of Government backing. Cheers J C A Mackie (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC) 09:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at La Trobe University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Review for Health Informatics C
- Provided detailed information on various topics
- Effectively defined the definition of PHR and its origin
- Well organised structure that logically flows
- Could include the disadvantages regarding the use of PHR
- Could further expand the topic 'PHR and public health'
The article I have selected is covers information on Personal Health Records (PHRs). When determining the article’s quality, it is important to thoroughly analyze the credibility of the author’s work. After scanning through the article, every fact that was referenced was accommodated by a direct link to its source via reference number. Although this avoids plagiarism, I wanted to check the quality of these references. The majority of sources were scholarly articles from PubMed within NCBI, a database for thousands of peer-reviewed reliable articles. I observed that all medical concepts included in the article were appropriately backed up by the scholarly sources and the broader scientific terms were linked to other Wikipedia articles. The topic of the article was not too broad which allowed the author to better focus on the specifics. Everything in the article was relevant to “Personal Health Records” and was broken into 8 sections which made it easy for a reader like me to understand the topic with clarity. All pieces of information were useful and it neither distracted me from the content nor did it break away on a tangent. Throughout the article, I observed that it stayed neutral, unyielding to any particular views. It was clear that the author’s purpose was to simply inform PHRs in all of its forms so that the reader could make a more knowledgable choice in the future. I detected slight bias only when reading the “Benefits” section of the article. Benefits can sometimes be a subjective term because each person has a different lifestyle. Some of the points that were provided, although it could be relevant to a particular person, may be coming from a biased frame convincing people that somehow life is better with PHRs. In my opinion I think that this section should have a small warning in the beginning to indicate that these are ways in which a certain group obtained benefits. Since this bias is not noted, people might accept this section as factual information which could be misleading. The citations, as I mentioned earlier, seemed to all work and up to date. Some articles have a problem with this as their references come from unreliable websites. This article however references sources from scholarly journals that will always be accessible to the public domain. There are also several references to Wikipedia articles that were reliable and up to date as well. There were no instances of close paraphrasing because only the concepts were provided to the article. In each fact throughout the article the reference link associated with it, only contained the concept and never a direct sentence or close paraphrase.
Questions: How have PHRs been further implemented as we progress into a more technology centered generation? What is preventing medical institutions from fully upgrading to make online PHRs a mandatory requirement?