Table of ContentsSummary of the first articleSummary of the second articleConclusionAccess to health information of individual patients is one of the fundamental medical rights of citizens. These are usually available from your doctors and other health care providers. As time and technology advance, patients' health records also become technologically advanced, and this factor has become more interesting for researchers to study. The research of Murphy-Abdouch et al (2017) and Jacqueline Low (2007) are just two examples of those that have addressed the issue of consumer health informatics, and they are relevant to our topic because they can provide more numerous and important information for our better understanding. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay First Article SummaryJacqueline Low (2007) studied consumer health informatics, particularly to inform consumers and improve health care. First, the author mentioned that online consumer health informatics projects face several problems, including ethical and security concerns, but the particular problem here concerns the "lack of critical analysis of the topics addressed within the framework of these projects” (Low, 2007). . She also mentioned the findings of Lewis et al (2005), stating that "the Internet is a dangerous source of health information." There is also a belief that not all online healthcare information can provide accurate and reliable information to medical experts and patients, and Lewis et al (2005) also consider this to be an issue that needs to be addressed. account. Low (2007) has divided 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 through 20, she found them problematic, arguing that the author had failed "to meaningfully address issues such as the digital divide and other socio-cultural issues surrounding lay people's ability to use music." “consumer health informatics”. Furthermore, Lewis et al's (2005) text was found to be devoid of critical discussions regarding the digital divide. In conclusion, Low (2007) gave his recommendations for the book, stating that the book needs more organization "in order to keep the topics together." She also mentioned 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 their access to personal health information and all other processes relating to it. in their study, they asked whether consumers requested and received access to their health records, whether there were costs when they requested records, how often they used patient portals and whether they were satisfied as well as PHR. Throughout their findings, it was found that more than half of the majority of consumers, 57%, request their health records through the ROI process, and that requests are made in a variety of ways: online, traditional or on paper, and even on CD. DVDs and flash drives. When it comes to portal usage, 83 percent of respondents have providers that have portals, and 82 percent of them actually use those portals. The reasons for not using the portals vary from.