ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Development and validation of an instrument to evaluate the perspective of using the electronic health record in a hospital setting.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Electronic Health Record Usability: Scoping Review of Adoption Models, Metrics, and Future Directions.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- AI anxiety and adoption intention in higher education based on an extended TAM-UTAUT and PLS-SEM analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a comprehensive tool to study the various elements influencing the utilization of E-learning among undergraduate health professions students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Factors influencing clinician performance post-electronic health record implementation: an empirical analysis in Moroccan hospitals.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating healthcare information systems, such as the Electronic Health Records (EHR), is both challenging and essential, especially in resource-limited countries. This study aims to psychometrically develop and validate an instrument (questionnaire) to assess the factors influencing the successful adoption of the EHR system by healthcare professionals in Moroccan university hospitals.
methodsThe questionnaire validation process occurred in two main stages. Initially, data collected from a pilot sample of 164 participants underwent analysis using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to evaluate the validity and reliability of the retained factor structure. Subsequently, the validity of the overall measurement model was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in a sample of 368 healthcare professionals.
resultsThe structure of the modified HOT-fit model, comprising seven constructs (System Quality, Information Quality, Information technology Service Quality, User Satisfaction, Organization, Environment, and Clinical Performance), was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. Absolute, incremental, and parsimonious fit indices all indicated an appropriate level of acceptability, affirming the robustness of the measurement model. Additionally, the instrument demonstrated adequate reliability and convergent validity, with composite reliability values ranging from 0.75 to 0.89 and average variance extracted (AVE) values ranging from 0.51 to 0.63. Furthermore, the square roots of AVE values exceeded the correlations between different pairs of constructs, and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) was below 0.85, confirming suitable discriminant validity.
conclusionsThe resulting instrument, due to its rigorous development and validation process, can serve as a reliable and valid tool for assessing the success of information technologies in similar contexts.
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.