Cited by 654Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 136 of the 136 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals

Open access

Abstract

This systematic review of mixed methods studies focuses on factors that can facilitate or limit the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in clinical settings. Systematic searches of relevant bibliographic databases identified studies about interventions promoting ICT adoption by healthcare professionals. Content analysis was performed by two reviewers using a specific grid. One hundred and one (101) studies were included in the review. Perception of the benefits of the innovation (system usefulness) was the most common facilitating factor, followed by ease of use. Issues regarding design, technical concerns, familiarity with ICT, and time were the most frequent limiting factors identified. Our results suggest strategies that could effectively promote the successful adoption of ICT in healthcare professional practices.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4

Cites

136 of 136 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 136 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Health Canada, Towards a healthy future: Second report on the health of Canadians. Federal. Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health, Ottawa, 1999.
  2. Barsukiewicz, C. K., Computerized medical records: physician response to new technology. The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 654

Metadata

Authors
Gagnon, M.-P., Desmartis, M., Labrecque, M., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Pluye, P., Frémont, P., Gagnon, J., Tremblay, N., & Légaré, F.
Affiliations
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
Venue
Journal of Medical Systems
Published
2010-03-30
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
241-277
ISSN
  • 0148-5598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-689X
OpenAlex
W2079522214
Cited by
637
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
information and communication technologies, ICT adoption, healthcare workers, technology implementation, enabling factors, limiting factors, perceived usefulness, ease of use, system usefulness
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Environment, Health Personnel, Humans, Information Systems, Time Factors

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