ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Comprehensive usability evaluation of electronic prescription systems: integrating expert and user perspectives.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElectronic prescribing, allows physicians to send prescriptions digitally to pharmacies and laboratories. This process streamlines patient care and ensures equitable access to medical services for all patients. This study aims to do the usability evaluation of Social Security electronic prescription system (SSEPS) and Health Insurance electronic prescription system (HIEPS) using insights from users and experts.
methodsThis research is a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in 2024. Three experts evaluated two electronic prescribing systems using Nielsen's Heuristic evaluation principles, rating issues on a 0-4 severity scale. The usability evaluation, conducted with fifty users via the Persian SUS, showed that the translated instrument was highly reliable (α = 0.79). Expert and user feedback were compared across 2 systems using SPSS to identify usability improvements.
resultsBased on heuristic evaluation, HIEPS demonstrates better consistency, but significant improvements in error prevention and user control remain priorities for both systems. Usability testing using the SUS revealed a slightly higher average score for the SSEPS (70.73) than the HIEPS (69.21). The significant P-value indicates this difference reflects a real distinction in perceived usability between the two systems.
conclusionE-prescription systems, despite their widespread use, continue to face usability issues that risk patient safety, reduce efficiency, and impact user satisfaction and hospital finances. Combining user and expert evaluations is more effective in identifying these issues than using a single method. Annual usability assessments and updates are recommended to address these challenges and improve system performance.
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.