Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28655299›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2017

Implementing technology in healthcare: insights from physicians.

Maria Dolors Ruiz Morilla, Mireia Sans, Albert Casasa, Nuria Giménez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A bibliometric analysis and mapping of global research trends in antihypertensive medication adherence (1975-2024).The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Project ECHOBMC health services research · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Maria Dolors Ruiz MorillaCAP Terrassa Oest. MútuaTerrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain. acupuntmedica@gmail.com.
Mireia SansHealth 2.0 section of the Col·legi Oficial de Metges de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Albert CasasaHealth 2.0 section of the Col·legi Oficial de Metges de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Nuria GiménezMútua Terrassa Research Foundation, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology has significantly changed the way health organizations operate. However, the role it plays in healthcare systems remains unclear. This aim of this study was to evaluate the opinion of physicians regarding e-health and determine what factors influence their opinion and describe the advantages, inconveniences and threats they may perceive by its use.

methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. A questionnaire which had been previously designed and validated by the authors was used to interview physicians from the Barcelona Medical Association. 930 physicians were contacted by phone to participate in the study.

resultsSeven hundred sixty physicians responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 82%). The usefulness of telemedicine scored 7.4 (SD 1.8) on a scale from 1-10 (from the lowest to the highest) and the importance of the Internet in the workplace was 8.2 points (SD 1.8). Therapeutic compliance (7.0 -SD 1.8-) and patient health (7.0 -SD 1.7-) showed the best scores, and there were differences between professionals who had and had not previously participated in a telemedicine project (p < 0.05). The multivariate regression model explained the 41% of the variance for 7 factors: participation in telemedicine project (p < 0.001), quality of clinical practice (p < 0.001), patient health (p < 0.001), professional workload (p = 0.005), ease-of-use of electronic device (p = 0.007), presence of incentives for telemedicine (p = 0.011) and patient preference for in-person visits (p = 0.05).

conclusionsPhysicians believe in the usefulness of e-health. Professionals with previous experience with it are more open to its implementation and consider that the benefits of technology outweigh its possible difficulties and shortcomings. Physicians demanded projects with appropriate funding and technology, as well as specific training to improve their technological abilities. The relationship of users with technology differs according to their personal or professional life. Although a 2.0 philosophy has been incorporated into many aspects of our lives, healthcare systems still have a long way to go in order to adapt to this new understanding of the relationship between patients and their health.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDelivery of Health CareTechnologyAdultAttitude to ComputersCross-Sectional StudiesDiffusion of InnovationFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineAttitudesAttitude to computersAttitude to healthDelivery of healthcareDiffusion of innovationHealth knowledgeOrganizational innovationPhysician-patient relationsSurveys and questionnairesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID28655299
PMCPMC5488364

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.