SJSharon L. Janssen

Sharon L. Janssen

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article

Previous Organizations / Institutes

The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years


Sharon L. Janssen has a total of 24 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Patient-reported usability challenges when implementing integrated EHR medication reminders for kidney transplant patients in a home setting: A pilot study

    by S.J. Oudbier, J.W. Aarts, J.M. Kloes van der, M.A. Kuijvenhoven, S.L. Janssen, M. Hilhorst, S.A. Nurmohamed, E.M.A. Smets, P.J.I. Teeuwisse, L.W. Dusseljee-Peute


  • Open Access

    Elevating Patient Engagement: Implementing EHR-Integrated Medication Reminders for Kidney Transplant Patients

    by Susan J. Oudbier, Linda W. Peute, Patty J.I. Teeuwisse, Juul Aarts, Sharon L. Janssen, S. Azam Nurmohamed, Ellen M.A. Smets, Hans J. Meij

    Digital health can enhance self-management of patients such as usage of medication reminders, thereby improving health outcomes. However, for successful implementation of such interventions, integration with the electronic health record (EHR) is useful. We evaluated the implementation of an integrated patient portal medication reminder tool in kidney transplant patients. Overall, 40.5% of the patients agreed that integrated EHR medication reminders assisted them in taking their medication on time.

  • The Amsterdam PROM Implementation Strategy: Policy and Pathway

    by Anouk Groenewegen, Maud M. van Muilekom, Cenne H.A.M. Sieben, Michiel A.J. Luijten, Sharon L. Janssen, Nynke Venema-Taat, Mira Korte, Caroline B. Terwee, Piet M. ter Wee, Hedy A. van Oers, et al.


  • Open Access

    Anticipated Benefits and Concerns of Sharing Hospital Outpatient Visit Notes With Patients (Open Notes) in Dutch Hospitals: Mixed Methods Study

    by Sharon L Janssen, Nynke Venema-Taat, Stephanie Medlock

    Background: The past few years have seen an increase in interest in sharing visit notes with patients. Sharing visit notes with patients is also known as “open notes.” Shared notes are seen as beneficial for patient empowerment and communication, but concerns have also been raised about potential negative effects. Understanding barriers is essential to successful organizational change, but most published studies on the topic come from countries where shared notes are incentivized or legally required. Objective: We aim to gather opinions about sharing outpatient clinic visit notes from patients and hospital physicians in the Netherlands, where there is currently no policy or incentive plan for shared visit notes. Methods: This multimethodological study was conducted in an academic and a nonacademic hospital in the Netherlands. We conducted a survey of patients and doctors in March-April 2019. In addition to the survey, we conducted think-aloud interviews to gather more insight into the reasons behind participants’ answers. We surveyed 350 physicians and 99 patients, and think-aloud interviews were conducted with an additional 13 physicians and 6 patients. Results: Most patients (81/98, 77%) were interested in viewing their visit notes, whereas most physicians (262/345, 75.9%) were opposed to allowing patients to view their visit notes. Most patients (54/90, 60%) expected the notes to be written in layman’s terms, but most physicians (193/321, 60.1%) did not want to change their writing style to make it more understandable for patients. Doctors raised concerns that reading the note would make patients feel confused and anxious, that the patient would not understand the note, and that shared notes would result in more documentation time or losing a way to communicate with colleagues. Interviews also revealed concerns about documenting sensitive topics such as suspected abuse and unlikely but worrisome differential diagnoses. Physicians also raised concerns that documenting worrisome thoughts elsewhere in the record would result in fragmentation of the patient record. Patients were uncertain if they would understand the notes (46/90, 51%) and, in interviews, raised questions about security and privacy. Physicians did anticipate some benefits, such as the patients remembering the visit better, shared decision-making, and keeping patients informed, but 24% (84/350) indicated that they saw no benefit. Patients anticipated that they would remember the visit better, feel more in control, and better understand their health. Conclusions: Dutch patients are interested in shared visit notes, but physicians have many concerns that should be addressed if shared notes are pursued. Physicians’ concerns should be addressed before shared notes are implemented. In hospitals where shared notes are implemented, the effects should be monitored (objectively, if possible) to determine whether the concerns raised by our participants have actualized into problems and whether the anticipated benefits are being realized.


  • Open Access

    Anticipated Benefits and Concerns of Sharing Hospital Outpatient Visit Notes With Patients (Open Notes) in Dutch Hospitals: Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)

    by Sharon L Janssen, Nynke Venema-Taat, Stephanie Medlock

    Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: The past few years have seen an increase in interest in sharing visit notes with patients. Sharing visit notes with patients is also known as “open notes.” Shared notes are seen as beneficial for patient empowerment and communication, but concerns have also been raised about potential negative effects. Understanding barriers is essential to successful organizational change, but most published studies on the topic come from countries where shared notes are incentivized or legally required. Objective: We aim to gather opinions about sharing outpatient clinic visit notes from patients and hospital physicians in the Netherlands, where there is currently no policy or incentive plan for shared visit notes. Methods: This multimethodological study was conducted in an academic and a nonacademic hospital in the Netherlands. We conducted a survey of patients and doctors in March-April 2019. In addition to the survey, we conducted think-aloud interviews to gather more insight into the reasons behind participants’ answers. We surveyed 350 physicians and 99 patients, and think-aloud interviews were conducted with an additional 13 physicians and 6 patients. Results: Most patients (81/98, 77%) were interested in viewing their visit notes, whereas most physicians (262/345, 75.9%) were opposed to allowing patients to view their visit notes. Most patients (54/90, 60%) expected the notes to be written in layman’s terms, but most physicians (193/321, 60.1%) did not want to change their writing style to make it more understandable for patients. Doctors raised concerns that reading the note would make patients feel confused and anxious, that the patient would not understand the note, and that shared notes would result in more documentation time or losing a way to communicate with colleagues. Interviews also revealed concerns about documenting sensitive topics such as suspected abuse and unlikely but worrisome differential diagnoses. Physicians also raised concerns that documenting worrisome thoughts elsewhere in the record would result in fragmentation of the patient record. Patients were uncertain if they would understand the notes (46/90, 51%) and, in interviews, raised questions about security and privacy. Physicians did anticipate some benefits, such as the patients remembering the visit better, shared decision-making, and keeping patients informed, but 24% (84/350) indicated that they saw no benefit. Patients anticipated that they would remember the visit better, feel more in control, and better understand their health. Conclusions: Dutch patients are interested in shared visit notes, but physicians have many concerns that should be addressed if shared notes are pursued. Physicians’ concerns should be addressed before shared notes are implemented. In hospitals where shared notes are implemented, the effects should be monitored (objectively, if possible) to determine whether the concerns raised by our participants have actualized into problems and whether the anticipated benefits are being realized.