Cited by 372Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 54 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities

Open access
Karsh, Ben-Tzion, Weinger, Matthew B, Abbott, Patricia A, Wears, Robert L·2010·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Current research suggests that the rate of adoption of health information technology (HIT) is low, and that HIT may not have the touted beneficial effects on quality of care or costs. The twin issues of the failure of HIT adoption and of HIT efficacy stem primarily from a series of fallacies about HIT. We discuss 12 HIT fallacies and their implications for design and implementation. These fallacies must be understood and addressed for HIT to yield better results. Foundational cognitive and human factors engineering research and development are essential to better inform HIT development, deployment, and use.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jamia.2010.005637

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 54 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 57 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
39 of 39
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The fallacies described in the paper are widely held by HIT designers and policymakers.

    “Many designers and policymakers believe that the risks of HIT are minor and easily manageable.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No other hazardous industry deploys safety critical IT without some form of independent hazard analysis.

    “No other hazardous industry deploys safety critical IT without some form of independent hazard analysis (eg, a ' safety case ' ); it is unwise for healthcare to continue to do so.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The current passive monitoring approach suggested by the Office of the National Coordinator is likely to be expensive and ineffective.

    “A passive monitoring approach, as currently suggested by the Office of the National Coordinator, 49 seems likely to be both expensive and ultimately ineffective.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are fundamental gaps in awareness, recognition, and application of existing scientific knowledge, especially in human factors, systems engineering, and cognitive engineering, that could help solve some of HIT's biggest problems.

    “There are fundamental gaps in the awareness, recognition, and application of existing scientific knowledge bases, especially related to human factors, and systems and cognitive engineering, that could help address some of HIT ' s biggest problems.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pilots and nuclear power operators did not improve safety on their own; they worked closely with experts in cognitive, social, and physical performance and safety.

    “Pilots did not improve aviation safety nor did nuclear power operators improve nuclear safety . by themselves. Rather they worked closely with experts in cognitive, social, and physical performance and safety to improve safety.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People have very limited insight into their own performance and even less ability to explain what might improve it.

    “Humans have very limited insight into their own performance, and even more limited ability to articulate what might improve it.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Commercial aviation has become very safe in the more than 60 years since Fitts' publication.

    “In the more than 60 years since that publication, commercial aviation has become very safe.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Throughout human history, major innovations have always brought new perils.

    “Throughout human history, significant innovations have always been associated with new perils.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    HIT works best and is safest when customized to local circumstances and workflows.

    “Despite compelling evidence that HITworks best (and is safest) when it is customized to local circumstances and workflows”
9 of 9

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 116 references

4 of the 116 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Sauer C . Deciding the future for IS failures: not the choice you might think. In: Currie W Galliers R , eds. Rethinking Management Information Systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999:279–309.
  2. Hoffman S Podgurski A . Finding a cure: the case for regulation and oversight of electronic health record systems. Harv J Law Technol 2008;22:104–65.
  3. Berg M . Rationalizing Medical Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
  4. Rubin JR . Handbook of Usability Testing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–372 of 372

Metadata

Authors
Karsh, B.-T., Weinger, M. B., Abbott, P. A., & Wears, R. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Karsh, Ben-Tzion
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2010-11
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
617-623
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2115602750
Cited by
365
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 34
FWCI
62.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R18SH017899)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS017902, HS016651, U18HS016651)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM008923)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
health information technology, quality of care, health care costs, human factors engineering, cognitive engineering
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Diffusion of Innovation, Health Policy, Humans, Medical Informatics, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, United States

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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