Cited by 851Electronic Health Records SystemsERP Systems Implementation and ImpactInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions

Open access
Boonstra, Albert, Broekhuis, Manda·2010·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this research is to identify, categorize, and analyze barriers perceived by physicians to the adoption of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) in order to provide implementers with beneficial intervention options. METHODS: A systematic literature review, based on research papers from 1998 to 2009, concerning barriers to the acceptance of EMRs by physicians was conducted. Four databases, "Science", "EBSCO", "PubMed" and "The Cochrane Library", were used in the literature search. Studies were included in the analysis if they reported on physicians' perceived barriers to implementing and using electronic medical records. Electronic medical records are defined as computerized medical information systems that collect, store and display patient information. RESULTS: The study includes twenty-two articles that have considered barriers to EMR as perceived by physicians. Eight main categories of barriers, including a total of 31 sub-categories, were identified. These eight categories are: A) Financial, B) Technical, C) Time, D) Psychological, E) Social, F) Legal, G) Organizational, and H) Change Process. All these categories are interrelated with each other. In particular, Categories G (Organizational) and H (Change Process) seem to be mediating factors on other barriers. By adopting a change management perspective, we develop some barrier-related interventions that could overcome the identified barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the positive effects of EMR usage in medical practices, the adoption rate of such systems is still low and meets resistance from physicians. This systematic review reveals that physicians may face a range of barriers when they approach EMR implementation. We conclude that the process of EMR implementation should be treated as a change project, and led by implementers or change managers, in medical practices. The quality of change management plays an important role in the success of EMR implementation. The barriers and suggested interventions highlighted in this study are intended to act as a reference for implementers of Electronic Medical Records. A careful diagnosis of the specific situation is required before relevant interventions can be determined.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-10-231

Cites

33 of 33 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?

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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Simon SR Kalshal R Cleary PD Jenter CA Volk LA Oray EJ Burdick E Poon EG Batees WW Physicians and Electronic Health Records "A Statewide Survey Archives of Internal Medicine 2007 167 5 507 512 10.1001/archinte.167.5.507 17353500 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boonstra, A., & Broekhuis, M.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Boonstra, Albert
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2010-08-06
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
231-231
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155857546
Cited by
851
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 67 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 40
FWCI
6.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
electronic health records, physician acceptance, technology adoption barriers, EMR implementation, change management, organizational barriers, financial barriers, legal barriers, social barriers, psychological barriers, time barriers, technical challenges, implementation strategies, medical practice
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Physicians, Electronic Health Records

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