Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35486414›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Health Professionals' eHealth Literacy and System Experience Before and 3 Months After the Implementation of an Electronic Health Record System: Longitudinal Study.

Lars Kayser, Astrid Karnoe, Emily Duminski, Svend Jakobsen, Rikke Terp, Susanne Dansholm, Michael Roeder, Gustav From

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Lars Kayser *Section of Health Service Research, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0909-4088
Astrid KarnoeSection of Health Service Research, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2571-1111
Emily DuminskiSection of Health Service Research, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9461-879X
Svend JakobsenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8090-4266
Rikke TerpDepartment of Internal Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2949-9362
Susanne DansholmDepartment of Internal Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0938-7542
Michael RoederDepartment of Internal Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5671-5385
Gustav FromDepartment of Internal Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3641-8735

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of an integrated electronic health record (EHR) system can potentially provide health care providers with support standardization of patient care, pathways, and workflows, as well as provide medical staff with decision support, easier access, and the same interface across features and subsystems. These potentials require an implementation process in which the expectations of the medical staff and the provider of the new system are aligned with respect to the medical staff's knowledge and skills, as well as the interface and performance of the system. Awareness of the medical staff's level of eHealth literacy may be a way of understanding and aligning these expectations and following the progression of the implementation process.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate how a newly developed and modified instrument measuring the medical staff's eHealth literacy (staff eHealth Literacy Questionnaire [eHLQ]) can be used to inform the system provider and the health care organization in the implementation process and evaluate whether the medical staff's perceptions of the ease of use change and how this may be related to their level of eHealth literacy.

methodsA modified version of the eHLQ was distributed to the staff of a medical department in Denmark before and 3 months after the implementation of a new EHR system. The survey also included questions related to users' perceived ease of use and their self-reported information technology skills.

resultsThe mean age of the 194 participants before implementation was 43.1 (SD 12.4) years, and for the 198 participants after implementation, it was 42.3 (SD 12.5) years. After the implementation, the only difference compared with the preimplementation data was a small decrease in staff eHLQ5 (motivated to engage with digital services; unpaired 2-tailed t test; P=.009; effect size 0.267), and the values of the scales relating to the medical staff's knowledge and skills (eHLQ1-3) were approximately ≥3 both before and after implementation. The range of scores was narrower after implementation, indicating that some of those with the lowest ability benefited from the training and new experiences with the EHR. There was an association between perceived ease of use and the 3 tested staff eHLQ scales, both before and after implementation.

conclusionsThe staff eHLQ may be a good candidate for monitoring the medical staff's digital competence in and response to the implementation of new digital solutions. This may enable those responsible for the implementation to tailor efforts to the specific needs of segments of users and inform them if the process is not going according to plan with respect to the staff's information technology-related knowledge and skills, trust in data security, motivation, and experience of a coherent system that suits their needs and supports the workflows and data availability.

Indexed as

digital healtheHealtheHealth literacyeHealth recordselectronic health recordhealth care professionalshealth literacyhealth recordsimplementationpatient care

Identifiers

PMID35486414
PMCPMC9107047

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.