The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Physicians and Electronic Health Records: A Statewide Survey
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) allow for a variety of functions, ranging from visit documentation to laboratory test ordering, but little is known about physicians' actual use of these functions. METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of 1884 physicians in Massachusetts by mail and assessed availability and use of EHR functions, predictors of use, and the relationships between EHR use and physicians' perceptions of medical practice. RESULTS: A total of 1345 physicians responded to the survey (71.4% response rate), and 387 (28.8%) reported that their practice had adopted EHRs. More than 80% of physicians with EHRs reported having the ability to view laboratory reports (84.8%) and document visits electronically (84.0%), but considerably fewer reported being able to order laboratory tests electronically (46.8%) or transmit prescriptions to a pharmacy electronically (44.7%). Fewer than half of the physicians who had systems with clinical decision support, transmittal of electronic prescriptions, and radiology order entry actually used these functions most or all of the time. Compared with physicians who had not adopted EHRs, EHR users reported more positive views of the effects of computers on health care; there were no significant differences in these attitudes between high and low users of EHRs. Overall, about 1 in 4 physicians reported dissatisfaction with medical practice; there was no difference in this measure by EHR adoption or use. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in the functions available in EHRs and in the extent to which physicians use them. Future work should emphasize factors that affect the use of available functions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., & Taylor, R. (2005) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103 · Cited by 1,675
Jha, A. K., Ferris, T. G., Donelan, K., DesRoches, C., Shields, A., Rosenbaum, S., & Blumenthal, D. (2006) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.w496 · Cited by 304
Physicians And Ambulatory Electronic Health Records
Bates, D. W. (2005) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1180 · Cited by 204
Self-citation
Cited by
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669
Boonstra, A., & Broekhuis, M. (2010) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-231 · Cited by 851
Grand challenges in clinical decision support
Sittig, D. F., Wright, A., Osheroff, J. A., Middleton, B., Teich, J. M., Ash, J. S., Campbell, E., & Bates, D. W. (2008) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2007.09.003 · Cited by 582
Barriers for Adopting Electronic Health Records (EHRs) by Physicians
Ajami, S., & BagheriTadi, T. (2013) · Acta Informatica Medica · doi:10.5455/aim.2013.21.129-134 · Cited by 309
Clinical Benefits of Electronic Health Record Use: National Findings
King, J., Patel, V., Jamoom, E. W., & Furukawa, M. F. (2014) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12135 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Simon, S. R.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2007-03-12
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 507
- ISSN
- 0003-9926
- OpenAlex
- W2171733484
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 32.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physicians and Electronic Health Records: A Statewide Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.167.5.507
- The paper
- Simon, S. R. (2007). Physicians and Electronic Health Records: A Statewide Survey. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.5.507
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.