Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36796855›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2023

Health professionals' routine practice documentation and its associated factors in a resource-limited setting: a cross-sectional study.

Addisalem Workie Demsash, Sisay Yitayih Kassie, Abiy Tasew Dubale, Alex Ayenew Chereka, Habtamu Setegn Ngusie, Mekonnen Kenate Hunde, Milkias Dugassa Emanu, Adamu Ambachew Shibabaw, Agmasie Damtew Walle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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. Review
  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

9 authors.

Addisalem Workie DemsashCollege of Health Science, Health Informatics Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia addisalemworkie599@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9356-8126
Sisay Yitayih KassieCollege of Health Science, Health Informatics Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.
Abiy Tasew DubaleCollege of Health Science, Health Informatics Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.
Alex Ayenew CherekaCollege of Health Science, Health Informatics Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.
Habtamu Setegn NgusieCollege of Health Science, Health Informatics Department, Woldia University, Woldia, Ethiopia.
Mekonnen Kenate HundeCollege of Education and Behavioral Science, Lifelong Learning and Community Development Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.
Milkias Dugassa EmanuCollege of Health Science, Nursing Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.
Adamu Ambachew ShibabawCollege of Health Science, Health Informatics Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.
Agmasie Damtew WalleCollege of Health Science, Health Informatics Department, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9583-5876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDocumenting routine practice is significant for better diagnosis, treatment, continuity of care and medicolegal issues. However, health professionals' routine practice documentation is poorly practised. Therefore, this study aimed to assess health professionals' routine practice documentation and associated factors in a resource-limited setting.

methodsAn institution-based cross-sectional study design was used from 24 March up to 19 April 2022. Stratified random sampling and a pretested self-administered questionnaire were used among 423 samples. Epi Info V.7.1 and STATA V.15 software were used for data entry and analysis, respectively. Descriptive statistics and a logistic regression model were employed to describe the study subjects and to measure the strength of association between dependent and independent variables, respectively. A variable with a p value of <0.2 in bivariate logistic regression was considered for multivariable logistic regression. In multivariable logistic regression, ORs with 95% CIs and a p value of <0.05 were considered to determine the strength of association between dependent and independent variables.

resultsHealth professionals' documentation practice was 51.1% (95% CI: 48.64 to 53.1). Lack of motivation (adjusted OR (AOR): 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.76), good knowledge (AOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.72 to 2.97), taking training (AOR: 4.18, 95% CI: 2.99 to 8.28), using electronic systems (AOR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.36 to 3.28), availability of standard documentation tools (AOR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.35 to 4.43) were statistically associated factors.

conclusionsHealth professionals' documentation practice is good. Lack of motivation, good knowledge, taking training, using electronic systems and the availability of documentation tools were significant factors. Stakeholders should provide additional training, and encourage professionals to use an electronic system for documentation practices.

Indexed as

Health FacilitiesMotivationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesBMJ health informaticsdata managementdocumentationelectronic health recordsevidence-based nursing

Identifiers

PMID36796855
PMCPMC9936289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.