ArticleJMIR human factors2023
Involving Health Care Professionals in the Development of Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electronic health records: managerial insights from an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Initial Implementation of E-Prescribing: Evidence from Eastern Taiwan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Revealing the Physician's Task Conceptualization in Melanoma Treatment: Qualitative User Experience Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- A Log-Level Data-Driven Precision Education Tool for Pediatrics Trainees: Human-Centered Development and Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Consensus-based reporting guideline for participatory development and evaluation of digital health interventions.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- An AI-Enabled Nursing Future With no Documentation Burden: A Vision for a New Reality.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Data in Diabetic Foot Care: From Current State to a Management Framework for Implementation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Requirements and Development Potential of Interdisciplinary Digital Health Data Exchange in Mobile Nursing and Care Settings in German-Speaking Countries: Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Service Users' Perspectives on an Integrated Electronic Care Record in Mental Health Care: Qualitative Vignette and Interview Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- User-Centered Design in Real-Time: Utilization of an Insider Position to Inform Design and Adoption.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Consumer Involvement in the Co-Design of Diabetes Self-Management Smartphone Apps: A Scoping Review.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Optimizing an Electronic Health Record System Used to Help Health Care Professionals Comply With a Standardized Care Pathway for Heart Failure During the Transition From Hospital To Chronic Care: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Exploratory Co-Design on Electronic Health Record Nursing Summaries: Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Codesigned standardised referral form: simplifying the complexity.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are a promising approach to document and map (complex) health information gathered in health care worldwide. However, possible unintended consequences during use, which can occur owing to low usability or the lack of adaption to existing workflows (eg, high cognitive load), may pose a challenge. To prevent this, the involvement of users in the development of EHRs is crucial and growing. Overall, involvement is designed to be very multifaceted, for example, in terms of the timing, frequency, or even methods used to capture user preferences.
objectiveSetting, users and their needs, and the context and practice of health care must be considered in the design and subsequent implementation of EHRs. Many different approaches to user involvement exist, each requiring a variety of methodological choices. The aim of the study was to provide an overview of the existing forms of user involvement and the circumstances they need and to provide support for the planning of new involvement processes.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to provide a database for future projects on which design of inclusion is worthwhile and to show the diversity of reporting. Using a very broad search string, we searched the PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. In addition, we searched Google Scholar. Hits were screened according to scoping review methodology and then examined, focusing on methods and materials, participants, frequency and design of the development, and competencies of the researchers involved.
resultsIn total, 70 articles were included in the final analysis. There was a wide range of methods of involvement. Physicians and nurses were the most frequently included groups and, in most cases, were involved only once in the process. The approach of involvement (eg, co-design) was not specified in most of the studies (44/70, 63%). Further qualitative deficiencies in the reporting were evident in the presentation of the competences of members of the research and development teams. Think-aloud sessions, interviews, and prototypes were frequently used.
conclusionsThis review provides insights into the diversity of health care professionals' involvement in the development of EHRs. It provides an overview of the different approaches in various fields of health care. However, it also shows the necessity of considering quality standards in the development of EHRs together with future users and the need for reporting this in future studies.
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.