The Role of Framing and Choice Architecture in Patients' Reactions and EHR Error Discovery and Reporting

Официальное название

The Role of Framing and Choice Architecture in Patients' Reactions and Electronic Health Records' Error Discovery and Reporting

Обзор

The first goal of our research is to understand the effects of different wordings of certain messages on patients' engagement in reviewing their electronic health records (EHRs). These messages will be about EHR errors and their potential consequences, as well as the benefits that might accrue from reviewing EHRs. The second goal is to understand the effects of different wordings of certain messages on patients' discovery and reporting of potential errors in their electronic health records (EHRs). The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Does focusing on the negative OR positive consequences of EHR errors in the investigator's messages to people, increase their likelihood of reviewing their EHRs? 2. Does focusing on the negative OR positive consequences of EHR errors in the investigators' messages to people, increase their likelihood of discovery and reporting of potential errors in their EHRs? First, participants will take an initial short online survey (for about 5 minutes). Next, participants will be asked to log into their patient portal and review their EHRs, a process that should take around 10 minutes. Finally, they will proceed with the same survey for an additional 5 minutes, providing responses about their healthcare provider, patient portals, EHR errors, and some basic demographic details.

Подробное описание

This study involves an online experiment aimed at assessing patient engagement in discovering and reporting errors in Electronic Health Records (EHRs). It is being conducted by Dr. Ryan Raimi from the Information Systems Area at The University of Texas at Dallas, in collaboration with Dr. Idris Adjerid from the Business Information Technology Department at Virginia Tech, along with Dr. Anish K. Agarwal and Dr. Raina M. Merchant from the Emergency Medicine Department at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. The research involves no deception and presents no more than minimal risk to participants, similar to the risks encountered in everyday life.

Participation typically takes no more than 20 minutes and is completely confidential. To begin, participants will voluntarily consent to take part in the study. If participants agree to participate, the study process will involve the following steps:

Survey Participation: Initially, participants will complete a short survey lasting about 5 minutes, where participants will answer questions about trust, distrust, and privacy concerns.

EHR Review: Next, participants will be instructed to access their patient portal and review their EHRs, which will take approximately 10 minutes.

Final Survey: Afterward, participants will continue the same survey for another 5 minutes, answering questions about their healthcare provider, patient portals, EHR errors, and some basic demographic information.

All responses are kept confidential, and no individual participant data will be identified. The data will be aggregated and published in a summary form only. Although the study is hosted on a secure https server, there is a minimal risk of unauthorized access (e.g., by hackers). Participants' Prolific IDs will not be linked to participants' survey responses, and the investigators will not access any personally identifying information on participants' Prolific Academic profiles.

Participation is voluntary, and choosing not to participate will not affect participants' rights or benefits. Participants may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.

Вмешательства

• Поведенческое Framing
  The participants will receive different messages using different terms and behavioral framings, encouraging them to review their EHRs and report any potential errors. These wording variations are expected to induce variance in subjects' behaviors with regard to the likelihood of reviewing EHRs, as well as discovering and reporting potential errors in them.

Первичные конечные точки

• Reviewing EHRs [Срок оценки: From starting the initial survey through study completion, an average of 20 minutes]

Вторичные конечные точки (2)

• EHR error discovery [Срок оценки: From starting the initial survey through study completion, an average of 20 minutes]
• EHR error reporting [Срок оценки: From starting the initial survey through study completion, an average of 20 minutes]

Критерии участия

Критерии включения

• Subjects should have access to their patient portal
• Subjects should have checked their EHR in the past 12 months

Критерии исключения

• Not having access to their patient portal
• Not having checked their EHR in the past 12 months

Критерии приведены из реестра в оригинале (на английском). Окончательную оценку соответствия проводит исследовательский центр.

Здоровые добровольцы: Да

Дизайн исследования

Распределение

Рандомизированное

Модель

Факторный дизайн

Маскирование

Двойное слепое

Основная цель

Другое

Центры проведения

США · 1 центр

• Naveen Jindal School of Management, The University of Texas at Dallas — Richardson

Идентификаторы

NCT: NCT07206550 · IRB-26-19

Первоисточники (государственные реестры)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH, США)

Открыть это исследование на ClinicalTrials.gov ↗