SynthesisBMC health services research2025
Usability evaluation methods for hospital information systems: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Innovation to Impact: The CREATE Framework as a Blueprint for Large Language Model Adoption in Opioid Treatment Programs.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Comparative Usability Evaluation of Two Hospital Information Systems: A Mixed-Methods Study in an Iranian Teaching Hospital.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of a patient-centered data governance platform for multimodal dental implant data management.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Mapping the landscape of standardized usability questionnaires in healthcare: a 26-year scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Article
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
backgroundHospital Information Systems (HIS) play a pivotal role in improving healthcare delivery by minimizing errors, increasing efficiency, and enhancing user satisfaction. Post-implementation usability evaluation is essential for optimizing these systems. This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis and comparative analysis of usability evaluation methods and tools applied across different HIS subsystems, offering evidence-based recommendations to inform future system design and research directions.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, SID, Magiran, Elmnet, and Google (first 10 pages) on January 14, 2024, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. From 21,592 records, 41 studies met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies applied quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods to evaluate HIS or its subsystems (e.g. NIS, LIS, CPOE). Data extraction and quality appraisal (using a modified Downs & Black checklist) were performed independently by two reviewers.
resultsAmong 41 included studies, user testing (UT) and heuristic evaluation (HE) were the most frequently applied methods (each in 34% of studies). The most commonly used tools were standardized questionnaires (40%) and checklists (36%), with SUS and Nielsen’s heuristics being predominant. Usability criteria assessed included user satisfaction (45%), efficiency (45%), error reduction (40%), learnability (19%), and flexibility (16%). HIS subsystems such as NIS (20%), CPOE (12%), and LIS (7%) were the most frequently evaluated. Geographically, 61% of the studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries, with Iran accounting for the majority (56%), and most research was published between 2016 and 2020 (41%).
conclusionThis review highlights methodological trends and gaps in HIS usability research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods enhances the accuracy of usability assessments. Future research should adopt AI-based evaluation tools, simulate clinical workflows, and address underexplored subsystems and criteria (e.g. learnability, flexibility) to improve HIS design and implementation.
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.