Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24009982›Full record

ArticleHealth systems (Basingstoke, England)2012

Physician Interactions with Electronic Health Records in Primary Care.

Enid Montague, Onur Asan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health systems (Basingstoke, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Burnout in clinicians.Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. More screen time, less face time - implications for EHR design.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2014
    Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Enid MontagueDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Onur Asan

Funding

Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$32.2M
INSTITUTIONAL CTSA (UW-MADISON): CLINICAL TRIALSUL1RR025011 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2007 to 2011
$29.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000427NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIt is essential to design technologies and systems that promote appropriate interactions between physicians and patients. This study explored how physicians interact with Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to understand the qualities of the interaction between the physician and the EHR that may contribute to positive physician-patient interactions. STUDY

designVideo-taped observations of 100 medical consultations were used to evaluate interaction patterns between physicians and EHRs. Quantified observational methods were used to contribute to ecological validity.

methodsTen primary care physicians and 100 patients from five clinics participated in the study. Clinical encounters were recorded with video cameras and coded using a validated objective coding methodology in order to examine how physicians interact with electronic health records.

resultsThree distinct styles were identified that characterize physician interactions with the EHR: technology-centered, human-centered, and mixed. Physicians who used a technology-centered style spent more time typing and gazing at the computer during the visit. Physicians who used a mixed style shifted their attention and body language between their patients and the technology throughout the visit. Physicians who used the human-centered style spent the least amount of time typing and focused more on the patient.

conclusionA variety of EHR interaction styles may be effective in facilitating patient-centered care. However, potential drawbacks of each style exist and are discussed. Future research on this topic and design strategies for effective health information technology in primary care are also discussed.

Indexed as

Clinician’s Interactive StyleHealth Information TechnologyHuman Computer InteractionPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID24009982
PMCPMC3760434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.