IndexSummary of the first articleSummary of the second articleConclusionAccess to individual patient health information is one of the fundamental medical rights of citizens. These are generally accessible through your doctors and other healthcare providers. As time and technology advance, patient medical records are also becoming technologically advanced, and this factor has become more interesting for researchers to study. The research by Murphy-Abdouch et al (2017) and Jacqueline Low (2007) are just two examples of those that have discussed the issue of consumer health informatics, and are relevant to our topic because they can provide more and important information for our best. comprehension. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essaySummary of the first articleJacqueline Low (2007) has studied consumer health informatics, particularly in consumer information and health care improvement. First, the author mentioned that there are several issues that online consumer health cyber projects face, including ethical and security issues, but the particular problem here concerns the “lack of critical analysis of the topics pursued at its interior" (Low, 2007). . He also cited the findings of Lewis et al” (2005), arguing that “the Internet is a dangerous source of health information”. It is also believed that not all online health information can provide accurate and reliable information for medical experts and patients, and Lewis et al (2005) also believe this is an issue to consider. Low (2007) has broken down Lewis et al's (2005) book and summarized each chapter, focusing on what each chapter has to offer. Apart from this, Low (2007) also analyzed the chapters. For chapters 15 to 20, he felt these were somewhat problematic, arguing that the author failed to "meaningfully address issues such as the digital divide and other sociocultural issues surrounding the ability of lay people to use l 'informatics for consumer health'. Furthermore, Lewis et al's (2005) text was found to lack critical discussions of the digital divide. In conclusion, Low (2007) provided his recommendations for the book, stating that the book needs more organization “to keep the arguments together.” He also stated that the text is somewhat repetitive and inconsistent. Summary of the second article Kim Murphy-Abdouch et al (2017) explored and analyzed how health consumers perceive access to personal health information and all other processes surrounding it. in their study they asked whether consumers request and get access to their medical records, whether there are costs when requesting medical records, how often they use patient portals, and whether they are satisfied with this and PHRs. Their findings found that more than half of the majority of consumers, or 57%, request health records through the ROI process, and requests are made in a variety of ways: online, traditional or paper, and even on CD. DVDs and flash drives. Regarding the use of portals, 83% of respondents have suppliers who have portals and 82% of them actually use them. Reasons for not using portals vary from disinterest in medical records to lack of knowledge in using portals. Meanwhile, when it comes to personal health records, only 49% of respondents keep their PHRs, and they do so primarily in paper format.