SynthesisBMJ open2022
Systematic review of electronic health records to manage chronic conditions among displaced populations.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electronic health records: managerial insights from an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Electronic Personal Health Records for Mobile Populations: A Rapid Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring the Novel Concept of Integrating Health Records and Environmental Data to Improve Care for Displaced Populations: A Commentary.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Article
- Evaluating Methodological Coherence and Evidence Recognition in Digital Health Systematic Reviews: Sample-based Meta-research Study.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Review
- Challenges and opportunities to addressing non-communicable diseases after climate-related disasters in Mozambique: a qualitative study.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- An offline-first electronic health record for vulnerable populations: A mixed-methods feasibility study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Public health interventions for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in humanitarian emergencies: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC public health · 2026Review
- PICO-based assessment and categorization of evidence for digital health interventions: an inductive framework development.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Integration of Environmental Data Into Electronic Health Records for Clinical and Public Health Decision Making: A Viewpoint on Expanding Development in the United States.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Digital solutions for migrant and refugee health: a framework for analysis and action.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to assess the impact of electronic health records (EHRs) on health outcomes and care of displaced people with chronic health conditions and determine barriers and facilitators to EHR implementation in displaced populations.
designA systematic review protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Systematic Reviews. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Technology Assessment, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 12 April 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STUDIES: Inclusion criteria were original research articles, case reports and descriptions of EHR implementation in populations of displaced people, refugees or asylum seekers with related chronic diseases. Grey literature, reviews and research articles unrelated to chronic diseases or the care of refugees or asylum populations were excluded. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modified Cochrane, Newcastle-Ottawa and Joanna Briggs Institute tools. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from each study using Covidence. Due to heterogeneity across study design and specific outcomes, a meta-analysis was not possible. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo V.12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). An inductive analysis was used in order to uncover patterns and themes in the experiences, general outcomes and perceptions of EHR implementation.
resultsA total of 32 studies across nine countries were included: 14 in refugee camps/settlements and 18 in asylum countries. Our analysis suggested that EHRs improve health outcomes for chronic diseases by increasing provider adherence to guidelines or treatment algorithms, monitoring of disease indicators, patient counselling and patient adherence. In asylum countries, EHRs resource allocation to direct clinical care and public health services, as well as screening efforts. EHR implementation was facilitated by their adaptability and ability to integrate into management systems. However, barriers to EHR development, deployment and data analysis were identified in refugee settings.
conclusionOur results suggest that well-designed and integrated EHRs can be a powerful tool to improve healthcare systems and chronic disease outcomes in refugee settings. However, attention should be paid to the common barriers and facilitating actions that we have identified such as utilising a user-centred design. By implementing adaptable EHR solutions, health systems can be strengthened, providers better supported and the health of refugees improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.