Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Mar;10(1):75-91.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00415.x.

Does the patient-held record improve continuity and related outcomes in cancer care: a systematic review

Affiliations

Does the patient-held record improve continuity and related outcomes in cancer care: a systematic review

Marjolein Gysels et al. Health Expect. 2007 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of the patient-held record (PHR) in cancer care.

Background: Patients with cancer may receive care from different services resulting in gaps. A PHR could provide continuity and patient involvement in care.

Search strategy: Relevant literature was identified through five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, CCTR and CDSR) and hand searches.

Inclusion criteria: Patient-held records in cancer care with the purpose of improving communication and information exchange between and within different levels of care and to promote continuity of care and patients' involvement in their own care.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data extraction recorded characteristics of intervention, type of study and factors that contributed to methodological quality of individual studies. Data were then contrasted by setting, objectives, population, study design, outcome measures and changes in outcome, including knowledge, satisfaction, anxiety and depression. Methodological quality of randomized control trials and non-experimental studies were assessed with separate standard grading scales.

Main results and conclusions: Seven randomized control trials and six non-experimental studies were identified. Evaluations of the PHR have reached equivocal findings. Randomized trials found an absence of effect, non-experimental evaluations shed light on the conditions for its successful use. Most patients welcomed introduction of a PHR. Main problems related to its suitability for different patient groups and the lack of agreement between patients and health professionals regarding its function. Further research is required to determine the conditions under which the PHR can realize its potential as a tool to promote continuity of care and patient participation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Studies included and excluded.

References

    1. Drury M, Yudkin P, Harcourt J et al. Patients with cancer holding their own records: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of General Practice 2000; 50: 105–110. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith SDM, Nicol KM, Devereux J, Cornbleet MA. Encounters with doctors: quantity and quality? Palliative Medicine 1999; 13: 217–223. - PubMed
    1. Jarrett NJ, Payne SA, Wiles RA. Terminally ill patients’ and lay‐carers’ perceptions and experiences of community‐based services. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999; 29: 176–483. - PubMed
    1. Latimer EJ, Crabb MR, Roberts JG, Ewen M, Roberts J. The patient care travelling record in palliative care: effectiveness and efficiency. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1998; 16: 41–51. - PubMed
    1. Payne S, Kerr C, Hawker S, Hardey M, Powell J. The communication of information about older people between health and social care practitioners. Age and Ageing 2002; 31: 107–117. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources