Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31687938›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

Usability Factors Associated With Physicians' Distress and Information System-Related Stress: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Tarja Heponiemi, Sari Kujala, Suvi Vainiomäki, Tuulikki Vehko, Tinja Lääveri, Jukka Vänskä, Eeva Ketola, Sampsa Puttonen, Hannele Hyppönen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Information system support for case-based knowledge formation in social welfare: a cross-sectional study.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Tarja HeponiemiNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8540-049X
Sari KujalaAalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5586-3725
Suvi VainiomäkiUniversity of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4724-4120
Tuulikki VehkoNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0034-8379
Tinja LääveriHelsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4124-6667
Jukka VänskäFinnish Medical Association, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2621-3245
Eeva KetolaNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6296-388X
Sampsa PuttonenFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7796-6941
Hannele HyppönenNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3914-5640

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConstantly changing and difficult-to-use information systems have arisen as a significant source of stress in physicians' work. Physicians have reported several usability problems, system failures, and a lack of integration between the systems and have experienced that systems poorly support the documentation and retrieval of patient data. This stress has kept rising in the 21st century, and it seems that it may also affect physicians' well-being.

objectiveThis study aimed to examine the associations of (1) usability variables (perceived benefits, technical problems, support for feedback, and user-friendliness), (2) the number of systems in daily use, (3) experience of using information systems, and (4) participation in information systems development work with physicians' distress and levels of stress related to information systems (SRIS) levels.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 4018 Finnish physicians (64.82%, 2572 out of 3968 women) aged between 24 and 64 years (mean 46.8 years) in 2017. The analyses of covariance were used to examine the association of independent variables with SRIS and distress (using the General Health Questionnaire) adjusted for age, gender, employment sector, specialization status, and the electronic health record system in use.

resultsHigh levels of technical problems and a high number of systems in daily use were associated with high levels of SRIS, whereas high levels of user-friendliness, perceived benefits, and support for feedback were associated with low levels of SRIS. Moreover, high levels of technical problems were associated with high levels of psychological distress, whereas high levels of user-friendliness were associated with low distress levels. Those who considered themselves experienced users of information systems had low levels of both SRIS and distress.

conclusionsIt seems that by investing in user-friendly systems with better technical quality and good support for feedback that professionals perceive as being beneficial would improve the work-related well-being and overall well-being of physicians. Moreover, improving physicians' skills related to information systems by giving them training could help to lessen the stress that results from poorly functioning information systems and improve physicians' well-being.

Indexed as

computers, digitalelectronic health recordshealth information systemsphysicians

Identifiers

PMID31687938
PMCPMC6913751

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.