Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33333824›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Doctors' Perceptions of E-Prescribing upon Its Mandatory Adoption in Poland, Using the

Natalia Wrzosek, Agnieszka Zimmermann, Łukasz Balwicki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. What Determines the Acceptance and Use of eHealth by Older Adults in Poland?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. A Survey of Patients' Opinions and Preferences on the Use of E-Prescriptions in Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Natalia WrzosekDepartment of Medical and Pharmacy Law, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-210 Gdańsk, Poland.
Agnieszka ZimmermannDepartment of Medical and Pharmacy Law, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-210 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8757-5311
Łukasz BalwickiDepartment of Public Health & Social Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-210 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8821-7911

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundE-prescribing is the most important achievement in the automation of the healthcare sector in Poland. Obligatory electronic prescribing came into force on 8 January 2020. This innovation significantly changes the work of doctors. Therefore, it is useful to identify the factors that have an impact on doctors' acceptance levels for the new technology.

methodsThis study employs a survey based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) method. Our questionnaire was completed by 144 family doctors in Poland during the technology implementation phase and the initial period of obligatory e-prescribing, between 1 December 2019 and 1 March 2020.

resultsThe results of the survey indicate that doctors do not believe that e-prescribing improves the effectiveness of their work. In addition, this attitude does not depend on the age of the respondent. We also found, regarding the influence of societal attitudes, that doctors only rarely consider the opinions of others in relation to their job.

conclusionsThe implementation of new technologies in the healthcare system must be accompanied by consideration of how user-friendly the technologies are, and whether the users will have appropriate technical and financial support.

Indexed as

attitude to computerselectronic prescribingUTAUT

Identifiers

PMID33333824
PMCPMC7765320

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.