ArticleScientific reports2025
Perception of health professionals towards electronic prescription in a teaching hospital.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For many years, physicians have primarily relied on handwritten prescriptions to convey medication therapy decisions to pharmacists. However, in the past decade, electronic prescribing has emerged as the latest technological advancement, gradually replacing traditional paper prescriptions. There is evidence that design and technical issues, interoperability, data relevance, user attitudes toward e-prescribing, productivity, and available resources are key factors influencing the implementation of e-prescribing for users. A cross-sectional study design was employed to recruit 423 study participants among health care professionals of Mizan-Tepi University Teaching Hospital. descriptive statistics was used to report frequencies and percentages. Binary logistic regression was employed to determine determinant factors for perceived useful ness towards electronic prescription. The study surveyed 423 individuals, with 364 completing the questionnaire (86.05% response rate). Of these, 275 (75.55%) were male, and 132 (36.26%) were aged 36–45, showing a mostly middle-aged, male workforce. A total of 283 (77.75%) felt comfortable using computers, and 247 (67.86%) used them for personal activities, indicating strong digital engagement. Significant factors linked to positive perceptions included general practitioners being 2.21 times more likely to have favorable views (AOR = 2.21; 95% CI: 1.05–3.16; p = 0.002) and those with 16–20 years of experience 1.42 times more likely (AOR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.19–2.88; p = 0.001). Participants handling fewer than 10 prescriptions daily were 68% less likely to have positive perceptions (AOR = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21–0.49; p = 0.001), indicating lower motivation among those with lighter workloads. This study demonstrates that HCPs generally perceive e-prescriptions as highly useful, particularly for saving time and reducing errors. Notably, general practitioners and those with higher prescription volumes exhibit a stronger positive perception, likely due to their daily workflow.
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.