Cited by 157Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourHealth Sciences Research and Education

Interventions for promoting information and communication technologies adoption in healthcare professionals

Open access
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre, Légaré, France, Labrecque, Michel, Frémont, Pierre, Pluye, Pierre, Gagnon, Johanne, Car, Josip, Pagliari, Claudia +3 more·2009·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information and communication technologies (ICT) are defined as digital and analogue technologies that facilitate the capturing, processing, storage and exchange of information via electronic communication. ICTs have the potential to improve information management, access to health services, quality of care, continuity of services, and cost containment. Knowledge is lacking on conditions for successful ICT integration into practice. OBJECTIVES: To carry out a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to promote the adoption of ICT by healthcare professionals. SEARCH STRATEGY: Specific strategies, defined with the help of an information specialist, were used to search the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register and additional relevant databases. We considered studies published from January 1990 until October 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before/after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series (ITS) that reported objectively measured outcomes concerning the effect of interventions to promote adoption of ICT in healthcare professionals' practices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed each potentially relevant study for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies by discussion or a third reviewer. Two teams of two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible, given the small number of included studies and the heterogeneity of intervention and outcomes measures. We conducted qualitative analyses, and have presented the results in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine of them were RCTs. All studies involved physicians as participants (including postgraduate trainees), and one study also included other participants. Only two studies measured patient outcomes. Searching skills and/or frequency of use of electronic databases, mainly MEDLINE, were targeted in eight studies. Use of Internet for audit and feedback, and email for provider-patient communication, were targeted in two studies. Four studies showed small to moderate positive effects of the intervention on ICT adoption. Four studies were unable to demonstrate significant positive effects, and the two others showed mixed effects. No studies looked at the long-term effect or sustainability of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence on effective interventions promoting the adoption of ICTs by healthcare professionals. Small effects have been reported for interventions targeting the use of electronic databases and digital libraries. The effectiveness of interventions to promote ICT adoption in healthcare settings remains uncertain, and more well designed trials are needed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd006093.pub2

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mobile devices leverage the reach and speed of mobile networks and mobile computing power to improve the reach of healthcare delivery, including capturing, processing, and exchange of information.

    “These devices leverage the reach and speed of mobile networks and mobile computing power to improve the reach of healthcare delivery (Leon 2012; West 2014), including the capturing, processing, and exchange of information (Gagnon 2009), holding the potential to transform aspects of health service delivery and health systems management (Qiang 2011; Tomlinson 2013).”
  • The foundation of the framework is based on the aforementioned principles, reviews in the field of eHealth, progressive insights from eHealth research, and multidisciplinary theories from psychology, communication, and human-computer interaction design.

    “The foundation of the framework is based on the aforementioned principles, reviews in the field of eHealth [2,3,22,96-99], progressive insights from eHealth research (see Multimedia Appendix 4), and multidisciplinary theories from psychology, communication, and human–computer interaction design.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lapointe L, Rivard S. [L'implantation d'un système d'information clinique]. ASAC Conference, St-John (N.-B.). 1999.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gagnon, M.-P., Légaré, F., Labrecque, M., Frémont, P., Pluye, P., Gagnon, J., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Desmartis, M., Turcot, L., & Gravel, K.
Affiliations
  • Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-21
Volume
2010
Issue
1
Pages
CD006093-CD006093
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2131262572
Cited by
157
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 16
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (79141)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
information and communication technologies, ICT adoption, healthcare workers, physicians, intervention, online databases, MEDLINE, digital libraries, audit and feedback, email communication, provider-patient communication
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Professional Practice, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval

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