Gunilla Myreteg

Dr. Gunilla Myreteg

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2018 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JMJonas Moll
Jonas Moll
HRHanife Rexhepi
Hanife Rexhepi
ÅCÅsa Cajander
Åsa Cajander
CGChristiane Grünloh
Christiane Grünloh
IHIsto Huvila
Isto Huvila
RÅRose-Mharie Åhlfeldt
Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt
Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

15 January 2018 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CGChristiane Grünloh
Christiane Grünloh
GMGunilla Myreteg
Gunilla Myreteg
ÅCÅsa Cajander
Åsa Cajander
HRHanife Rexhepi
Hanife Rexhepi
Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

27 June 2016 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CGChristiane Grünloh
Christiane Grünloh
ÅCÅsa Cajander
Åsa Cajander
GMGunilla Myreteg
Gunilla Myreteg
Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

2 February 2024 in JMIR Mental Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JMJonas Moll
Jonas Moll
GMGunilla Myreteg
Gunilla Myreteg
HRHanife Rexhepi
Hanife Rexhepi
Background: Sharing mental health notes through patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) is controversial. Many psychiatric organizations and regions in Sweden have resisted the implementation, as clinicians worry about possible harms when patients are reading their notes. Despite the documented benefits of PAEHRs, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding whether patients with mental health issues could reap similar benefits of reading their notes as other patient groups. Objective: The aim of the study is to examine the use, attitudes, and experiences of patients with mental health issues by reading their notes in the PAEHR and, moreover, whether their experiences differ from other patient groups, and if so, how. Methods: A national patient survey was conducted with answers from 2587 patients from different patient groups. In total, 504 respondents (19.5%) indicated that they experienced a mental health disease. Answers from this patient group were compared to the answers from all other respondents. Survey questions related to attitudes, information usage, and effects on contacts with care were selected for analysis. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to detect groupwise differences. Results: Patients with mental health issues use PAEHRs for checking that they have received the right care (mean_mental health 2.83, SD_mental health 1.39; mean_others 2.62, SD_others 1.37; P=.002) or suspected inaccuracies (mean_mental health 2.55, SD_mental health 1.34; mean_others 2.31, SD_others 1.30; P=.001), blocking access for professionals in other specialties (mean_mental health 3.43, SD_mental health 1.46; mean_others 3.04, SD_others 1.42; P<.001), and checking which care professionals have accessed their record (mean_mental health 4.28, SD_mental health 1.14; mean_others 4.05, SD_others 1.25; P<.001) to a significantly higher degree than other patients. On the other hand, the results show that a significantly lower proportion of patients with mental health issues (mean_mental health 3.38, SD_mental health 1.21; mean_others 3.52, SD_others 1.18; P=.02) believe that PAEHRs help them in shared decision-making compared to other patient groups. Conclusions: Patients with mental health issues who took part in the survey, as a group, express some minor differences in both the use of the PAEHR and their experiences regarding its usefulness, as compared to other patients, as a group. This patient group shows a slightly higher interest in 2 types of use: checking for accuracy of care in the record and blocking access to mental health notes for professionals from other parts of the health care system. Compared to other patient groups, these patients are less likely to experience that the PAEHR is a support in shared decision-making. The study indicates that the benefits of PAEHR on a general level are the same for this patient group as for other patients. The study does not support clinicians’ worry about possible harm to this patient group. Further research is however needed.

30 April 2025 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JMJonas Moll
Jonas Moll
HRHanife Rexhepi
Hanife Rexhepi
GMGunilla Myreteg
Gunilla Myreteg
CBCharlotte Blease
Charlotte Blease
ABAnnika Bärkås
Annika Bärkås
AKAnna Kharko
Anna Kharko

29 November 2017 in JMIR Preprints
Verified
Preprint
Open access
JMJonas Moll
Jonas Moll
HRHanife Rexhepi
Hanife Rexhepi
ÅCÅsa Cajander
Åsa Cajander
CGChristiane Grünloh
Christiane Grünloh
IHIsto Huvila
Isto Huvila
RÅRose-Mharie Åhlfeldt
Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt
BACKGROUND Internationally, there is a movement toward providing patients a Web-based access to their electronic health records (EHRs). In Sweden, Region Uppsala was the first to introduce patient-accessible EHRs (PAEHRs) in 2012. By the summer of 2016, 17 of 21 county councils had given citizens Web-based access to their medical information. Studies on the effect of PAEHRs on the work environment of health care professionals have been conducted, but up until now, few extensive studies have been conducted regarding patients’ experiences of using PAEHRs in Sweden or Europe, more generally. OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to investigate patients’ experiences of accessing their EHRs through the Swedish national patient portal. In this study, we have focused on describing user characteristics, usage, and attitudes toward the system. METHODS A national patient survey was designed, based on previous interview and survey studies with patients and health care professionals. Data were collected during a 5-month period in 2016. The survey was made available through the PAEHR system, called Journalen, in Sweden. The total number of patients that logged in and could access the survey during the study period was 423,141. In addition to descriptive statistics reporting response frequencies on Likert scale questions, Mann-Whitney tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and chi-square tests were used to compare answers between different county councils as well as between respondents working in health care and all other respondents. RESULTS Overall, 2587 users completed the survey with a response rate of 0.61% (2587/423,141). Two participants were excluded from the analysis because they had only received care in a county council that did not yet show any information in Journalen. The results showed that 62.97% (1629/2587) of respondents were women and 39.81% (1030/2587) were working or had been working in health care. In addition, 72.08% (1794/2489) of respondents used Journalen about once a month, and the main reason for use was to gain an overview of one’s health status. Furthermore, respondents reported that lab results were the most important information for them to access; 68.41% (1737/2539) of respondents wanted access to new information within a day, and 96.58% (2454/2541) of users reported that they are positive toward Journalen. CONCLUSIONS In this study, respondents provided several important reasons for why they use Journalen and why it is important for them to be able to access information in this way—several related to patient empowerment, involvement, and security. Considering the overall positive attitude, PAEHRs seem to fill important needs for patients.