Cited by 366Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutTechnostress in Professional Settings

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study

Open access
Babbott, Stewart, Manwell, Linda Baier, Brown, Roger, Montague, Enid, Williams, Eric, Schwartz, Mark, Hess, Erik, Linzer, Mark·2014·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little has been written about physician stress that may be associated with electronic medical records (EMR). OBJECTIVE: We assessed relationships between the number of EMR functions, primary care work conditions, and physician satisfaction, stress and burnout. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: 379 primary care physicians and 92 managers at 92 clinics from New York City and the upper Midwest participating in the 2001-5 Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome (MEMO) Study. A latent class analysis identified clusters of physicians within clinics with low, medium and high EMR functions. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed physician-reported stress, burnout, satisfaction, and intent to leave the practice, and predictors including time pressure during visits. We used a two-level regression model to estimate the mean response for each physician cluster to each outcome, adjusting for physician age, sex, specialty, work hours and years using the EMR. Effect sizes (ES) of these relationships were considered small (0.14), moderate (0.39), and large (0.61). KEY RESULTS: Compared to the low EMR cluster, physicians in the moderate EMR cluster reported more stress (ES 0.35, p=0.03) and lower satisfaction (ES -0.45, p=0.006). Physicians in the high EMR cluster indicated lower satisfaction than low EMR cluster physicians (ES -0.39, p=0.01). Time pressure was associated with significantly more burnout, dissatisfaction and intent to leave only within the high EMR cluster. CONCLUSIONS: Stress may rise for physicians with a moderate number of EMR functions. Time pressure was associated with poor physician outcomes mainly in the high EMR cluster. Work redesign may address these stressors.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001875

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • There is a lack of consensus on approaches to measure documentation burden.

    “Yet, to our best knowledge, there is a lack of consensus on approaches to measure burden.15,37,41–45”

    From Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review (2021) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Main measures section (page not provided) describes this study’s measures of time pressure, stress, and burnout; the Discussion mentions documentation requirements. Neither addresses whether there is consensus on approaches to measuring documentation burden. Searches for that claim and for standard measurement methods found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Babbott, S., Manwell, L. B., Brown, R., Montague, E., Williams, E., Schwartz, M., Hess, E., & Linzer, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Hennepin County Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Babbott, Stewart
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2014-02
Volume
21
Issue
e1
Pages
e100-e106
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2152304691
Cited by
366
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9
FWCI
22.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS 011955, 5R01 HS 011955)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
Keywords
electronic health records, physician stress, burnout, physician satisfaction, primary care physicians, time pressure, job redesign
MeSH terms
Adult, Burnout, Professional, Female, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, Stress, Psychological, Organizational Culture, Electronic Health Records, Physicians, Primary Care

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