Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22967231›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012

Users' perspectives of key factors to implementing electronic health records in Canada: a Delphi study.

Carrie Anna McGinn, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Nicola Shaw, Claude Sicotte, Luc Mathieu, Yvan Leduc, Sonya Grenier, Julie Duplantie, Anis Ben Abdeljelil, France Légaré

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Developing a Health Literacy Scale for adults in Hong Kong: A modified e-Delphi study with healthcare consumers and providers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. What adults with ADHD want to know: A Delphi consensus study on the psychoeducational needs of experts by experience.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Carrie Anna McGinnInstitut de réadaptation en déficience physique de Québec, Québec, Canada.
Marie-Pierre Gagnon
Nicola Shaw
Claude Sicotte
Luc Mathieu
Yvan Leduc
Sonya Grenier
Julie Duplantie
Anis Ben Abdeljelil
France Légaré

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 200805KRS-188487-KSB-CFBA-111141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInteroperable electronic health record (EHR) solutions are currently being implemented in Canada, as in many other countries. Understanding EHR users' perspectives is key to the success of EHR implementation projects. This Delphi study aimed to assess in the Canadian context the applicability, the importance, and the priority of pre-identified factors from a previous mixed-methods systematic review of international literature.

methodsA three-round Delphi study was held with representatives of 4 Canadian EHR user groups defined as partners of the implementation process who use or are expected to use EHR in their everyday activity. These groups are: non-physician healthcare professionals, health information professionals, managers, and physicians. Four bilingual online questionnaire versions were developed from factors identified by the systematic review. Participants were asked to rate the applicability and the importance of each factor. The main outcome measures were consensus and priority. Consensus was defined a priori as strong (≥ 75%) or moderate (≥ 60-74%) according to user groups' level of agreement on applicability and importance, partial (≥ 60%) when participants agreed only on applicability or importance, or as no consensus (< 60%). Priority for decision-making was defined as factors with strong consensus with scores of 4 or 5 on a five-point Likert scale for applicability and importance.

resultsThree Delphi rounds were completed by 64 participants. Levels of consensus of 100%, 64%, 64%, and 44% were attained on factors submitted to non-physician healthcare professionals, health information professionals, managers, and physicians, respectively. While agreement between and within user groups varied, key factors were prioritized if they were classified as strong (≥ 75% from questionnaire answers of user groups), for decision-making concerning EHR implementation. The 10 factors that were prioritized are perceived usefulness, productivity, motivation, participation of end-users in the implementation strategy, patient and health professional interaction, lack of time and workload, resources availability, management, outcome expectancy, and interoperability.

conclusionsAmongst all factors influencing EHR implementation identified in a previous systematic review, ten were prioritized through this Delphi study. The varying levels of agreement between and within user groups could mean that users' perspectives of each factor are complex and that each user group has unique professional priorities and roles in the EHR implementation process. As more EHR implementations in Canada are completed it will be possible to corroborate this preliminary result with a larger population of EHR users.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDelphi TechniqueHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Plan ImplementationAdministrative PersonnelAttitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to ComputersCanadaConsensusEfficiency, OrganizationalElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleOrganizational CultureOrganizational Innovation

Identifiers

PMID22967231
PMCPMC3470948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.