Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37847535›Full record

SynthesisJMIR human factors2023

Experience of Health Care Professionals Using Digital Tools in the Hospital: Qualitative Systematic Review.

Marie Wosny, Livia Maria Strasser, Janna Hastings

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. EHR perception and momentary well-being in oncology professionals.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Marie WosnySchool of Medicine, University of St Gallen (HSG), St Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0000-2791-0774
Livia Maria StrasserSchool of Medicine, University of St Gallen (HSG), St Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0004-3664-5596
Janna HastingsSchool of Medicine, University of St Gallen (HSG), St Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3469-4923

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe digitalization of health care has many potential benefits, but it may also negatively impact health care professionals' well-being. Burnout can, in part, result from inefficient work processes related to the suboptimal implementation and use of health information technologies. Although strategies to reduce stress and mitigate clinician burnout typically involve individual-based interventions, emerging evidence suggests that improving the experience of using health information technologies can have a notable impact.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to collect evidence of the benefits and challenges associated with the use of digital tools in hospital settings with a particular focus on the experiences of health care professionals using these tools.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to explore the experience of health care professionals with digital tools in hospital settings. Using a rigorous selection process to ensure the methodological quality and validity of the study results, we included qualitative studies with distinct data that described the experiences of physicians and nurses. A panel of 3 independent researchers performed iterative data analysis and identified thematic constructs.

resultsOf the 1175 unique primary studies, we identified 17 (1.45%) publications that focused on health care professionals' experiences with various digital tools in their day-to-day practice. Of the 17 studies, 10 (59%) focused on clinical decision support tools, followed by 6 (35%) studies focusing on electronic health records and 1 (6%) on a remote patient-monitoring tool. We propose a theoretical framework for understanding the complex interplay between the use of digital tools, experience, and outcomes. We identified 6 constructs that encompass the positive and negative experiences of health care professionals when using digital tools, along with moderators and outcomes. Positive experiences included feeling confident, responsible, and satisfied, whereas negative experiences included frustration, feeling overwhelmed, and feeling frightened. Positive moderators that may reinforce the use of digital tools included sufficient training and adequate workflow integration, whereas negative moderators comprised unfavorable social structures and the lack of training. Positive outcomes included improved patient care and increased workflow efficiency, whereas negative outcomes included increased workload, increased safety risks, and issues with information quality.

conclusionsAlthough positive and negative outcomes and moderators that may affect the use of digital tools were commonly reported, the experiences of health care professionals, such as their thoughts and emotions, were less frequently discussed. On the basis of this finding, this study highlights the need for further research specifically targeting experiences as an important mediator of clinician well-being. It also emphasizes the importance of considering differences in the nature of specific tools as well as the profession and role of individual users.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023393883; https://tinyurl.com/2htpzzxj.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalHealth PersonnelDelivery of Health CareEmotionsHospitalsHumansburnoutclinical decision supportelectronic health recordelectronic medical recordshealth care professionalshealth information technologyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID37847535
PMCPMC10618886

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.