ArticleHealth science reports2026
Comparative Usability Evaluation of Two Hospital Information Systems: A Mixed-Methods Study in an Iranian Teaching Hospital.
Article in Health science reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Usability of hospital information systems (HIS) is critical for workflow efficiency, user satisfaction, and safe clinical practice. Comparative evaluations of legacy desktop-based HIS and newer web-based platforms remain limited, particularly during the real-world digital transition. This study aimed to compare the usability of the legacy Iranian Hospital Information System (IHIS) and the newly implemented web-based Sepid system in the Inpatient Admission and Radiology modules of a teaching hospital in Mashhad, Iran. Methods: This convergent parallel mixed-methods study was conducted from July to September 2025 at Qaem Educational and Research Hospital. In the qualitative phase, eight expert evaluators conducted heuristic evaluations based on Nielsen's ten usability heuristics. In the quantitative phase, 34 end-users with routine experience using both systems completed the System Usability Scale (SUS). Qualitative findings were thematically consolidated, and quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired comparative tests. Results: Heuristic evaluation showed that Sepid's main usability problems were related to system performance, external database integration, and error messaging, whereas IHIS demonstrated more fundamental interface-related limitations, including visual clutter, weak flexibility, and lack of undo/redo functionality. Quantitatively, Sepid achieved a higher mean SUS score than IHIS (66.25 vs. 51.99). For Sepid, 4 users (11.8%) rated usability as unacceptable, 17 (50.0%) as marginal, and 13 (38.2%) as acceptable. For IHIS, the corresponding values were 12 (35.3%), 19 (55.9%), and 3 (8.8%), respectively. The between-system difference in SUS scores was statistically significant ( Conclusion: Although Sepid outperformed IHIS, both systems remained within the marginal usability range. The findings indicate that HIS improvement should prioritize user-centered interface redesign, stronger error prevention, better interoperability with external databases, and continuous user training. These results may guide developers, hospital managers, and policymakers in improving HIS design and implementation during the digital transition.
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.