ArticleJournal of medical systems2012
Usability evaluation of paper-based "Hajji" Health Record format.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Health informatics publication trends in Saudi Arabia: a bibliometric analysis over the last twenty-four years.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study objective was the development and content evaluation of the paper-based Hajji Health Record (PHHR) instrument to make it appropriate for developmental phases of web based electronic Hajji (Pilgrim) Health Record (WEHHR) implementation. A qualitative and quantitative survey was done on 13 December 2008G in Alnoor Specialist Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Twenty-two physicians of 19 countries were given a preliminary questionnaire containing basic sociodemographic information, followed by Hajjis' health information sheet (HHIS) with a sample scenario of a case history. A structured evaluation questionnaire about HHIS was given afterwards. Five point Likert scaling was used starting from strongly agree to strongly disagree as 1 to 5. Data was analyzed by using SPSS programme version 16. Two tailed p-value <0.05 was considered as significant. Mean age was 48.6 years with range (35-64). Specialists were 10(45.5%) and teaching hospitals' physicians were 11(50%). Twelve (54.5%) physicians had concept about EHR, while the same number had their Hajjis' health record but only 33.3% (4/12) had sufficient health information. Response rate was 91.9% with average rating of 2.2 ± 1. Agreement response (78.8%) was noted for "medical history" category followed by "medication history" (76.2%). Average rating of consultants was (2 ± 0.88), while specialists, residents and general practitioners had 2.3 ± 1.2, 2.7 ± 1, 2.1 ± 0.58, respectively. Physicians without EHR concept had average rating 2.1 ± 1.16 than other group (2.3 ± 0.92). Majority of physicians were specialists. Overall response rate was superb with agreement response. No significant difference in rating was found among all categories of physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20703648What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.