ReviewHealth science reports2025
Identifying Influential Theories in Human-Computer Interaction Within Health Informatics: A Systematic Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Digital transformation in healthcare has driven the adoption of diverse health information systems, including electronic health records, mobile health (mHealth) applications, and clinical decision support tools. However, optimal interaction between users and these systems remains a challenge. The field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) offers theoretical frameworks to guide the design and evaluation of these technologies, enhancing usability and adoption by health professionals and patients. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesize the most frequently applied HCI theories in health informatics and examine their relevance across digital health technologies. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Three databases-PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar-were searched with no date restriction. Studies were included if they applied a defined HCI theory to the context of health information technologies and were published in English. Review articles, conceptual papers, and studies without a clear theoretical framework were excluded. A total of 67 eligible studies were included in the final synthesis. Results: The use of HCI theories in health information technology has increased notably since 2015, with a sharp rise observed after 2020. The most frequently used frameworks included the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). mHealth applications accounted for most theory applications (37%), followed by hospital information systems and web-based tools. The geographic distribution revealed that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia produced the highest number of theory-driven studies. Conclusions: HCI theories are vital in improving the design, usability, and implementation of health information systems. This review underscores the importance of integrating user-centered theoretical frameworks in system development and calls for broader geographic and contextual diversity in future theory-based research.
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.