Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26769911›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2016

Computers in the clinical encounter: a scoping review and thematic analysis.

Noah H Crampton, Shmuel Reis, Aviv Shachak

Open access · bronzeAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
32.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 157 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Improving Patient-Provider Communication and Therapeutic Practice Through Better Integration of Electronic Health Records in the Exam Room: A Pilot Study.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2019
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Speaker Role Identification in Clinical Conversations.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Perspective of Health Care Professionals and Cancer Survivors on the Usage of Technology in Consultations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Noah H CramptonDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shmuel ReisFaculty of Medicine in the Galilee, Bar-Ilan University, Safed, Israel.
Aviv ShachakInstitute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation (Dalla Lana School of Public Health) and Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada aviv.shachak@utoronto.ca.
Bar-Ilan University · ILSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient-clinician communication has been associated with increased patient satisfaction, trust in the clinician, adherence to prescribed therapy, and various health outcomes. The impact of health information technology (HIT) on the clinical encounter in general and patient-clinician communication in particular is a growing concern. The purpose of this study was to review the current literature on HIT use during the clinical encounter to update best practices and inform the continuous development of HIT policies and educational interventions.

methodsWe conducted a literature search of four databases. After removing duplicates, reviewing titles and abstracts, performing a full-text review, and snowballing from references and citations, 51 articles were included in the analysis. We employed a qualitative thematic analysis to compare and contrast the findings across studies.

resultsOur analysis revealed that the use of HIT affects consultations in complex ways, impacting eye contact and gaze, information sharing, building relationships, and pauses in the conversation. Whether these impacts are positive or negative largely depends on the combination of consultation room layout, patient and clinician styles of interaction with HIT as well as each other, and the strategies and techniques employed by clinicians to integrate HIT into consultations. DISCUSSION: The in-depth insights into the impact of HIT on the clinical encounter, especially the strategies and techniques employed by clinicians to adapt to using HIT in consultations, can inform policies, educational interventions, and research.

conclusionIn contrast to the common negative views of HIT, it affects the clinical encounter in multiple ways. By applying identified strategies and best practices, HIT can support patient-clinician interactions rather than interfering with them.

Indexed as

CommunicationMedical InformaticsPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsComputersElectronic Health RecordsHumansTime Factorselectronic health recordhealth information technologypatient-clinician communicationprofessional-patient relationstemplates

Identifiers

PMID26769911
PMCPMC7839926
OpenAlexW2291361172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.