ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2017
Computer use in primary care practices in Canada.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital maturity and its determinants in General Practice: A cross-sectional study in 20 countries.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Extending large-scale electronic health records to Canadian family physicians: Perspectives from a clinical trainer.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020Article
- Article
- Promoting cross-jurisdictional primary health care research: developing a set of common indicators across 12 community-based primary health care teams in Canada.Primary health care research & development · 2019Article
- Does not compute.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the use of computers in primary care practices.
designThe international Quality and Cost of Primary Care study was conducted in Canada in 2013 and 2014 using a descriptive cross-sectional survey method to collect data from practices across Canada. Participating practices filled out several surveys, one of them being the Family Physician Survey, from which this study collected its data.
settingAll 10 Canadian provinces.
participantsA total of 788 family physicians.
main outcome measuresA computer use scale measured the extent to which family physicians integrated computers into their practices, with higher scores indicating a greater integration of computer use in practice. Analyses included
resultsNearly all (97.5%) physicians reported using a computer in their practices, with moderately high computer use scale scores (mean [SD] score of 5.97 [2.96] out of 9), and many (65.7%) reported using EHRs. Physicians with practices operating under new models of primary care reported incorporating computers into their practices to a greater extent (mean [SD] score of 6.55 [2.64]) than physicians operating under traditional models did (mean [SD] score of 5.33 [3.15];
conclusionMost family physicians in Canada have incorporated computers into their practices for administrative and scholarly activities; however, EHRs have not been adopted consistently across the country. Physicians with practices operating under the new, more collaborative models of primary care use computers more comprehensively and are more likely to use EHRs than those in practices operating under traditional models of primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28500211PMC5429070What 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.