Reconsidering what is vital about vital signs in electronic health records: Comment on Matthews et al. (2016).

Abstract

The inclusion of psychosocial variables into electronic health records provides a unique opportunity for the translation of findings from social, psychological, and behavioral domains into patient care. This commentary is a response to the recommendations of a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine to address this opportunity (Matthews, Adler, Forrest, & Stead, 2016). We concur with the committee that the inclusion of psychosocial variables in electronic health records will broadly benefit researchers, practitioners, and patients and that there is clear need for a recommended panel of psychosocial measures that is ready for implementation in clinical settings. In fact, it seems likely that these recommendations will have lasting consequences. Given this, our response highlights several concerns about the recommendations and criteria. We suggest further clarification of the audience for these recommendations, reconsideration of the overly restrictive inclusion criteria, and more extensive engagement of psychosocial researchers to achieve broader consensus.

Loneliness in psychosis: A practical review and critique for clinicians.

“…In growing recognition of the wealth of evidence on the importance of loneliness and social connection for health and well-being, the Institute of Medicine recently proposed these psychosocial variables for inclusion in all electronic health records (Matthews, Adler, Forrest, & Stead, 2016). Although these proposals have not yet been translated into an agreed panel of measures for use in clinical settings (Condon, Weston, & Hill, 2017)—routine monitoring of loneliness could help to improve care and address the needs, challenges, and priorities of people with, or at heightened risk for psychosis.…”

Personality traits and health care use: A coordinated analysis of 15 international samples.

“…Incorporating personality assessment into precision medicine approaches (Ziegelstein, 2015) may help practitioners predict how an individual is likely to engage with the health care system or understand more precisely how the health care system is not working for the individual. For example, understanding how personality and other individual-level factors influence health care use has the potential to inform personalized medicine by identifying who could benefit the most from targeted interventions that promote effective health care use, and how to tailor health promotion communication to improve individuals’ healthy use of services and the delivery of patient-centered health services (Condon, Weston, & Hill, 2017; Israel et al, 2014; Mroczek et al, 2020; Ziegelstein, 2015). However, several open questions would need to be addressed before the present findings could be applied to health care delivery or policy.…”

Personality traits and healthcare use: A coordinated analysis of 15 international samples

“…This information can be used to promote effective, efficient, and equitable healthcare. Theoretical frameworks and burgeoning empirical evidence suggest that personality traits may be key predisposing factors that predict healthcare use (e.g., Chapman et al, 2009;Friedman et al, 2013;Condon, Weston, & Hill, 2017). Using data from 15 international samples, the present research tested the hypothesis that personality traits are associated with healthcare use across multiple types of healthcare services.…”