Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37428524›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2023

Involving Health Care Professionals in the Development of Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review.

Theresa Sophie Busse, Chantal Jux, Johannes Laser, Peter Rasche, Horst Christian Vollmar, Jan P Ehlers, Sven Kernebeck

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
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

7 authors.

Theresa Sophie BusseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine (AM RUB), Medical Faculty, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1821-749X
Chantal JuxSchool of Nursing, Saint Elisabeth Group GmbH, Catholic Hospitals Rhine-Ruhr, Herne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4241-4936
Johannes LaserChair of Didactics and Educational Research in Healthcare, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4933-0495
Peter RascheInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine (AM RUB), Medical Faculty, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7974-8668
Horst Christian VollmarInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine (AM RUB), Medical Faculty, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0117-7188
Jan P EhlersChair of Didactics and Educational Research in Healthcare, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6306-4173
Sven KernebeckChair of Didactics and Educational Research in Healthcare, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7098-9748

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

digital technologyelectronic health recordselectronic medical recordsstakeholder participationtechnology developmentuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID37428524
PMCPMC10366971

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.