SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Engagement with the national electronic health records by people with Parkinson's disease.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2026-06-04

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2026.1817635PMID: 42376001

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundPeople with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) require coordinated, multidisciplinary care, which can be facilitated by Electronic Health Records (EHRs) enabling efficient information exchange and personalized decision-making. Understanding which patient-, healthcare provider- (HCP), and technology-related factors drive EHR engagement among older population with complex health needs is crucial for the successful adoption and advancement of digital transformation in medicine.MethodsGuided by the digital health empowerment framework, this cross-sectional study explored patient engagement with the national EHRs among 191 PwPD in Luxembourg, using validated instruments, including eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) and Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).ResultsFindings from the descriptive and regression analysis showed that only 29.8% respondents engaged multiple times with their personal EHR in the previous year, 70.2% have not used it, including 40.8 % who have never access it since the launch of EHR system. Key factors associated with higher engagement with personal EHR included being born in Luxembourg, milder disease severity, and higher digital health literacy, as well as receiving support from HCPs to use personal EHR. Surprisingly, higher trust in HCPs and greater health literacy were linked to lower personal EHR usage.ConclusionsPersonal EHR engagement among the vulnerable aging population is influenced by a complex interplay of patient, HCP, and technology-related factors, which must be addressed holistically to ensure inclusive usage and adherence to digital health tools.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.