The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups' perceptions
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review identifying users groups' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription (e-prescribing) in primary care. METHODS: We included studies following these criteria: presence of an empirical design, focus on the users' experience of e-prescribing implementation, conducted in primary care, and providing data on barriers and facilitators to e-prescribing implementation. We used the Donabedian logical model of healthcare quality (adapted by Barber et al) to analyze our findings. RESULTS: We found 34 publications (related to 28 individual studies) eligible to be included in this review. These studies identified a total of 594 elements as barriers or facilitators to e-prescribing implementation. Most user groups perceived that e-prescribing was facilitated by design and technical concerns, interoperability, content appropriate for the users, attitude towards e-prescribing, productivity, and available resources. DISCUSSION: This review highlights the importance of technical and organizational support for the successful implementation of e-prescribing systems. It also shows that the same factor can be seen as a barrier or a facilitator depending on the project's own circumstances. Moreover, a factor can change in nature, from a barrier to a facilitator and vice versa, in the process of e-prescribing implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This review summarizes current knowledge on factors related to e-prescribing implementation in primary care that could support decision makers in their design of effective implementation strategies. Finally, future studies should emphasize on the perceptions of other user groups, such as pharmacists, managers, vendors, and patients, who remain neglected in the literature.
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.
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“in relation to e-prescribing, clinicians did not want to solve implementation problems and believed this should be done by non-clinical staff [14].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Resistance to change caused by disagreement with the evidence, negative beliefs about the usefulness or added value of the intervention or belief that the intervention was not part of their role were commonly described as a barrier to implementation [3, 14, 35, 41, 67–70, 76, 77, 80].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Existing reviews tend to focus either on a particular type of complex intervention (e.g. introduction of new technologies [14] or promoting uptake and use of guidelines [15]) or on a particular health condition (e.g. mental health [16] or diabetes [17]).”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“When the fit was good [14, 73, 74], for example, when e-prescribing was sufficiently integrated as part of clinician workflow, work process was improved [14].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Contextual factors that are perceived as barriers at the beginning of implementation may become facilitators later on in the implementation process [14].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“work processes were viewed as a barrier during the transition phase but became a facilitator when the intervention was formally integrated and work flow was improved [14].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While the users had a less positive view of the intervention during pre-implementation phase, their views became more positive with the increasing use of the intervention during the transition and post-implementation phases.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Relevant barriers and facilitators are dynamic and likely to change over time [14, 28].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“The attitudes of colleagues [25, 41] and patients [25, 27, 41] were also reported to influence staff attitudes with regard to e-health acceptance as were staff demographic factors [23, 46, 56].”
From Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Specifically, fears over a loss of autonomy [16, 18, 27, 34, 37, 39, 43], concerns about liability [16, 18, 22, 37, 43, 51], concerns over patient privacy and security being compromised [16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51–53, 56, 57], and perceived threats to patient and health professional relationships [18, 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37–39, 41, 43, 54, 57] through the”
From Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Planning for implementation was important for success, whereas the lack of a strategic plan was reported as a barrier to e-health implementation [24, 27, 31, 44, 50].”
From Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Planning for implementation was important for success, whereas the lack of a strategic plan was reported as a barrier to e-health implementation [24, 27, 31, 44, 50].”
From Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
Evaluating the quality of medical care
DONABEDIAN, A. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x · Cited by 6,102
Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care
Donabedian, A. (1966) · The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3348969 · Cited by 4,418
Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients
Pirmohamed, M., James, S., Meakin, S., Green, C. A., SCOTT, A. K., Walley, T. J., Farrar, K., Park, B. K., & Breckenridge, A. M. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15 · Cited by 3,236
Sullivan, L. E. (2009) · The SAGE Glossary of the Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.4135/9781412972024.n747 · Cited by 2,442
Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009 · Cited by 1,119
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–132 of 132
An Architecture for Electronic Prescribing in Physiotherapy in Belgium
Buyl, R., Laere, S. V., & Nyssen, M. (2016) · World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7 - 12, 2009, Munich, Germany · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32703-7_155
Important Things to Consider In Health Information Exchange (HIE) Process
Zhang, Y. (2016) · International Conference on Electrical & Electronics Engineering and Computer Science (ICEEECS) · doi:10.2991/iceeecs-16.2016.68
Implementation of complex interventions in UK General Practice
Lau, W. K. R. (2018) · UCL Discovery (University College London)
Juwita, A. (2019) · International Journal of Advanced Research · doi:10.21474/ijar01/9342
IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONS: THE PHYSICIANS VIEW
Stari?, K. D., Tilney, M. K., Chouvarda, I., & Belani, P. B. A. H. (2020) · IADIS International Conference on e-Health (EH) · doi:10.33965/eh2020_202009l008
Reeves, N. (2022) · Teaching and learning in nursing · doi:10.1016/j.teln.2022.03.006
Christian, M., Fensi, F., & Arifin, P. (2023) · Jurnal E-Bis (Ekonomi-Bisnis) · doi:10.37339/e-bis.v7i2.1182
Digital Mental Health Interventions for Children and Youth
Machado, A. S., Ferreira, B., Pereira, C. Y., Carrola, C., de Melo, B. B. V., & Campos, C. (2023) · Advances in medical technologies and clinical practice book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-9251-2.ch002
Barriers to electronic prescribing of controlled substance, especially opioids
Borghol, A., Ahmed, F., Jamero, D. J., Calmes, H. M., Monthey, T., Pappas, S., Scott, R., Deblieux, J., Ulrich, M., & Malhotra, S. (2024) · Journal of Opioid Management · doi:10.5055/jom.0857
Viewpoint of physicians and pharmacists on electronic prescription service: Short Communication
Barazandeh, M., Salehzadeh, A., Ram, M., Negahban, A., Shirdel, A., & Farrahi, R. (2024) · Sālnāmah va āmār. · doi:10.61186/jbums.31.4.329
Physicians’ Attitudes Toward E-Prescription in Kerala: Facilitators, Barriers, and Insights
Saranya, P., & Balasubramanian, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-1744-9_36
Using Medication Management Technologies in Swiss Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study
Wildisen, J. M., Romer, A., Zangger, M., Bugnon, B., Streit, S., Weir, K. R., & Jungo, K. T. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/68857
Bélanger, V., Cousineau, M., Moreault, M.-P., & Motulsky, A. (2025) · BMC Digital Health · doi:10.1186/s44247-025-00189-x
Script Shift: South African pharmacists’ knowledge and perspectives of e-prescribing
Shaikh, R. P., Barnard-Ashton, P. M., Bayever, D. N., & du Toit, L. C. (2025) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czaf062 · Cited by 4
Alshamlan, A., Alkattan, A., Alghazal, S., AlMunjem, M. F., Alkhalifah, A., Almunjem, M., Alsalameen, E., Albassri, T., Alhadad, A., & Alhaqbani, A. (2025) · Discover Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12982-025-00996-7
Mekuria, A. B., Lim, R., Andrade, A. Q. D., Rowett, D. S., & Roughead, E. E. (2025) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.70261
Vaghasiya, M. R., Penm, J. H.-D., Kuan, K. K. Y., Gunja, N., Liu, Y., Kim, E. D., Petrina, N., & Poon, S. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15063610
Vaghasiya, M. R., Penm, J. H.-D., Kuan, K. K. Y., Gunja, N., Liu, Y., Kim, E. D., Petrina, N., & Poon, S. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15063604
Ji, H., Dong, J., Pan, W., & Yu, Y. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25572672
Ji, H., Dong, J., Pan, W., & Yu, Y. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25572562
Waiswa, P., Aweko, J., Opio, C. B., Ashaba, M. S., Igbokwe, U., Aigbogun, E., Mboup, Z., Ndiaye, S., Faye, A., Bakainaga, A. N., et al. (2026) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017476
Buabbas, A. J., Alsaleh, F. M., Alsanafi, M., Safar, M., Al‐Sultan, A. T., & Zaman, T. A. (2026) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/80963
Maulana, Y., Kristina, S. A., & Wiedyaningsih, C. (2026) · Journal of Pharmaceutical And Sciences · doi:10.36490/journal-jps.com.v9i2.1530
Initial Implementation of E-Prescribing: Evidence from Eastern Taiwan
Chang, C.-Y., Chen, C.-L., Chu, H.-Y., Tsai, C.-H., & Chen, Y.-Y. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14152285
Dalton, K., Kenny, C., Culhane, M., & Callaghan, R. (2026) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2026.100826
Reevaluating IT adoption capability at the unit-level of analysis through a micro-foundations lens
Ali, O., Murray, P., & Jaradat, A. (2026) · Innovation · doi:10.1080/14479338.2026.2711369
Metadata
- Authors
- Gagnon, M.-P., Nsangou, É.-R., Payne-Gagnon, J., Grenier, S., & Sicotte, C.
- Affiliations
- Université Laval (CA)
- Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval (CA)
- Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
- École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Payne-Gagnon, Julie
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-05
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 535-541
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC3994867
- OpenAlex
- W2114801561
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 1.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- electronic prescribing, barriers and facilitators, primary care, user perception, interoperability, technical support, organizational support, implementation strategies, Donabedian model
- MeSH terms
- Workforce, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Efficiency, Humans, Nurses, Pharmacists, Primary Health Care, Electronic Prescribing, 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
