Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39287947›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2024

Electronic Health Record Nudges and Health Care Quality and Outcomes in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

Oliver T Nguyen, Avaneesh R Kunta, SriVarsha Katoju, Sara Gheytasvand, Niloofar Masoumi, Ronia Tavasolian, Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Young-Rock Hong, Karim Hanna, Randa Perkins and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Error in Byline.JAMA network open · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Comment on "Standardized gynecologic consultation and bone surveillance in patients with breast cancer receiving hormone therapy"2.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Oliver T NguyenDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Avaneesh R KuntaCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
SriVarsha KatojuDepartment of Community Health and Family Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Sara GheytasvandTabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Niloofar MasoumiCollege of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ronia TavasolianDepartment of Clinical Science and Nutrition, University of Chester, England.
Amir Alishahi TabrizDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Young-Rock HongDepartment of Health Services Research, Management, and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Karim HannaDepartment of Family Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Randa PerkinsDepartment of Internal Medicine, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Arpan ParekhCollege of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Kea TurnerDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Nudges have been increasingly studied as a tool for facilitating behavior change and may represent a novel way to modify the electronic health record (EHR) to encourage evidence-based care. Objective: To evaluate the association between EHR nudges and health care outcomes in primary care settings and describe implementation facilitators and barriers. Evidence Review: On June 9, 2023, an electronic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science for all articles about clinician-facing EHR nudges. After reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts, the present review was restricted to articles that used a randomized clinical trial (RCT) design, focused on primary care settings, and evaluated the association between EHR nudges and health care quality and patient outcome measures. Two reviewers abstracted the following elements: country, targeted clinician types, medical conditions studied, length of evaluation period, study design, sample size, intervention conditions, nudge mechanisms, implementation facilitators and barriers encountered, and major findings. The findings were qualitatively reported by type of health care quality and patient outcome and type of primary care condition targeted. The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was adapted to evaluate the studies based on RCT design (cluster, parallel, crossover). Studies were scored from 0 to 5 points, with higher scores indicating lower risk of bias. Findings: Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most studies (79.6%) were assessed to have a moderate risk of bias. Most or all descriptive (eg, documentation patterns) (30 of 38) or patient-centeredness measures (4 of 4) had positive associations with EHR nudges. As for other measures of health care quality and patient outcomes, few had positive associations between EHR nudges and patient safety (4 of 12), effectiveness (19 of 48), efficiency (0 of 4), patient-reported outcomes (0 of 3), patient adherence (1 of 2), or clinical outcome measures (1 of 7). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found low- and moderate-quality evidence that suggested that EHR nudges were associated with improved descriptive measures (eg, documentation patterns). Meanwhile, it was unclear whether EHR nudges were associated with improvements in other areas of health care quality, such as effectiveness and patient safety outcomes. Future research is needed using longer evaluation periods, a broader range of primary care conditions, and in deimplementation contexts.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID39287947
PMCPMC11409160

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.