ArticleBMC health services research2026
Explaining the experiences of stakeholders in design evaluation criteria for the electronic prescribing system in Iran: a qualitative study.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor the complete implementation of an electronic prescription system, it is inevitable to consider the stakeholders' viewpoints of the system. Given that every system should be evaluated, this study was conducted aimed to explain the experiences of stakeholders in designing evaluation criteria for the electronic prescribing system in Iran: a qualitative study.
methodsThis study is a qualitative study using directed content analysis. Interviews were conducted with 36 stakeholders of the Electronic prescription system (13 physicians, 11 pharmacists, 7 managers and experts of insurance organizations, and 5 patients) who were selected by purposive sampling. For data analysis, the criteria of Graneheim and Lundman (2004) were used, and MAXQDA 10 was used to manage the data.
resultsFrom the viewpoint of the participants, the criteria considered for evaluating the Electronic prescription system were "infrastructure", "transparency and accountability", "access to patient data", "reminder, renewals, and monitoring", "selection of drug and para-clinical services", "viewing patient records", "warning prescribers and users to support the decision", "security and confidentiality" and "data transfer and storage".
conclusionsThe study results can help the policymakers, managers, and decision-makers in the field of Electronic prescription systems to compare different electronic prescribing systems, the result will lead to the improvement and improvement of the electronic prescribing system in Iran.
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.