Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Electronic health record (EHR) implementation is currently underway in Canada, as in many other countries. These ambitious projects involve many stakeholders with unique perceptions of the implementation process. EHR users have an important role to play as they must integrate the EHR system into their work environments and use it in their everyday activities. Users hold valuable, first-hand knowledge of what can limit or contribute to the success of EHR implementation projects. A comprehensive synthesis of EHR users' perceptions is key to successful future implementation. This systematic literature review was aimed to synthesize current knowledge of the barriers and facilitators influencing shared EHR implementation among its various users. Methods: Covering a period from 1999 to 2009, a literature search was conducted on nine electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported on users' perceived barriers and facilitators to shared EHR implementation, in healthcare settings comparable to Canada. Studies in all languages with an empirical study design were included. Quality and relevance of the studies were assessed. Four EHR user groups were targeted: physicians, other health care professionals, managers, and patients/public. Content analysis was performed independently by two authors using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators for each group of EHR users. Results: Of a total of 5,695 potentially relevant publications identified, 117 full text publications were obtained after screening titles and abstracts. After review of the full articles, 60 publications, corresponding to 52 studies, met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent adoption factors common to all user groups were design and technical concerns, ease of use, interoperability, privacy and security, costs, productivity, familiarity and ability with EHR, motivation to use EHR, patient and health professional interaction, and lack of time and workload. Each user group also identified factors specific to their professional and individual priorities. Conclusions: This systematic review presents innovative research on the barriers and facilitators to EHR implementation. While important similarities between user groups are highlighted, differences between them demonstrate that each user group also has a unique perspective of the implementation process that should be taken into account.
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
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?
Positive attitudes of practitioners toward e-health systems and their implementation increased acceptance and implementation.
“Positive attitudes of practitioners toward e-health systems and their implementation increased acceptance and implementation [20, 21, 41, 44, 46, 49]”
From Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) (2016) · cites this paper as [41]
Education was reported to increase staff acceptance of e-health systems, including education around anticipated benefits and when those benefits could be expected.
“Education was reported to increase staff acceptance of e-health systems [16, 25, 41, 45] including education around anticipated benefits and when those benefits could be expected [54].”
From Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) (2016) · cites this paper as [41]
A good fit, or perceived fit, between e-health systems and workflows, and systems positively influencing workplace efficiency, facilitates use.
“When there is a good fit, or perceived fit, between e-health systems and workflows, and when systems positively influence workplace efficiency, this facilitates use [15, 40, 41].”
From Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) (2016) · cites this paper as [41]
The attitudes of colleagues and patients were reported to influence staff attitudes with regard to e-health acceptance, as were staff demographic factors.
“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 [41]
Perceived usefulness was influenced by perceived ease of use, eHealth and business process alignment, end user involvement, management commitment and support to change, health care provider-patient relationship, and IT experience and knowledge.
“whereas their perceived usefulness was influenced by the perceived ease of use, eHealth and business process alignment, end user involvement, management commitment and support to change, health care provider-patient relationship, and IT experience and knowledge [25,28,33,56,77,83,86-88].”
From Health Care Provider Adoption of eHealth: Systematic Literature Review (2013) · cites this paper as [86]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 90 · Cited by 393
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Canada Health Infoway and Health Council of Canada Beyond good intentions: accelerating the electronic health record in canada Policy Conference 2006 Montebello, QC, Canada
- Anderson JG Social, ethical and legal barriers to E-health Int J Med Inform 2007 76 480 483 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.09.016 17064955 · DOI
- Cabana MD Rand CS Powe NR Wu AW Wilson MH Abboud PA Rubin HR Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement JAMA 1999 282 1458 1465 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 10535437 · DOI · Paper page
- Rogers EM The Diffusion of Innovations 1995 4 New York: The Free Press
- Saillour-Glenisson F Michel P Facteurs individuels et collectifs associés à l'application des recommandations de pratique clinique par le corps médical. Revue de la littérature Revue d'épidemiologie et de sante publique 2003 51 65 80 12684582
- Moody LE Slocumb E Berg B Jackson D Electronic health records documentation in nursing: nurses' perceptions, attitudes, and preferences Comput Inform Nurs 2004 22 337 344 10.1097/00024665-200411000-00009 15602303 · DOI · Paper page
- Alonso A Iraburu M Saldana ML de Pedro MT [Implantation of a computerised clinical history: survey on the degree of utilisation and satisfaction in a tertiary hospital.] An Sist Sanit Navar 2004 27 233 239 15381955
- Auber BA Hamel G Adoption of smart cards in the medical sector: the Canadian experience Soc Sci Med 2001 53 879 894 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00388-9 11522135 · DOI
- Authors
- McGinn, C. A., Grenier, S., Duplantie, J., Shaw, N., Sicotte, C., Mathieu, L., Leduc, Y., Légaré, F., & Gagnon, M.-P.
- Affiliations
- Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
- Université Laval (CA)
- Algoma University (CA)
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2011-04-28
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-46
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3103434
- OpenAlex
- W2101321266
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 3.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (200609MSH-167016-HAS-CFBA-111141, 200805KRS-188487-KSB-CFBA-111141)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Keywords
- electronic health records, EHR implementation, barriers and facilitators, user perspective, physicians, healthcare workers, health managers, patients, interoperability, privacy and security, ease of use, workload, EHR adoption
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Canada, Data Collection, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, 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