ArticleBMC health services research2026
Hospital information systems evaluation criteria: a scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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.
- User-Centered Evaluation of Healthcare Information System Utilization: A Cross-Sectional Study Integrating Acceptance Models.Health science reports · 2026Article
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
introductionHospital information systems (HISs) play a vital role in optimizing healthcare delivery, managing clinical data, and supporting decision-making. While numerous frameworks have been developed to evaluate HIS performance, many remain limited in scope and do not fully capture the wide range of needs in modern healthcare environments. This review aimed to identify, categorize, and present a comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating HIS performance.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was carried out in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for English-language studies that addressed HIS evaluation criteria.
resultsThe initial search yielded 561 records, 52 of which met the inclusion criteria. A comprehensive list of evaluation indicators was synthesized and grouped into six main domains: human, technological, informational, organizational, legal, and patient safety. These domains were further divided into 14 categories. To provide further clarity, the indicators were also classified according to Donabedian’s framework of structure, process, and outcome. The majority of studies emphasized structural aspects—such as technological infrastructure and organizational capacity—followed by process-related factors such as user training and system usability, whereas outcome measures were less frequently addressed. Across the domains, “user satisfaction” was the most commonly reported criterion.
conclusionThis review provides a structured, multidimensional framework for the comprehensive evaluation of HISs. Moving beyond partial assessments focused solely on technical or usability aspects highlights the importance of incorporating human, organizational, legal, and patient safety perspectives. The proposed framework has practical value for policymakers, hospital administrators, and IT developers and can serve as a foundation for developing standardized and adaptable evaluation tools.
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.