The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determinants of Success of Inpatient Clinical Information Systems: A Literature Review
Open accessAbstract
We reviewed the English and Dutch literature on evaluations of patient care information systems that require data entry by health care professionals published from 1991 to 2001. Our objectives were to identify attributes that were used to assess the success of such systems and to test the ability of a framework developed by Delone and McLean for management information systems(1) to categorize these attributes correctly. The framework includes six dimensions or success factors: system quality, information quality, usage, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact. Thirty-three papers were selected for complete review. Types of study design included descriptive, correlational, comparative, and case studies. A variety of relevant attributes could be assigned to the six dimensions in the Delone and McLean framework, but some attributes, predominantly in cases of failure, did not fit any of the categories. They related to contingent factors, such as organizational culture. Our review points out the need for more thorough evaluations of patient care information systems that look at a wide range of factors that can affect the relative success or failure of these systems.
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 says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two frameworks drew on DeLone and McLean’s classic theoretical model of information system success [94]. This considers system quality, information quality, usage attributes, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact [49,50].”
In the citing paper
“Some authors [30,48,60,80,84,85,94] have expressed the need for mixed methods using both quantitative and qualitative designs in order to better measure the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies.”
From A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies (2011) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Impact fluctuates over time and situations [30,88-90]; therefore, we need to have more advanced methods to assess the added value of eHealth technologies for health care and society.”
From A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies (2011) · cites this paper as [30]
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
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
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
(1993) · Cited by 7,856
The Impact of Computerized Physician Order Entry on Medication Error Prevention
Bates, D. W., Teich, J. M., Lee, J., Seger, D., Kuperman, G. J., Ma'Luf, N., Boyle, D., & Leape, L. (1999) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1999.00660313 · Cited by 1,260
Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study1
Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249133 · Cited by 1,114
Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges
Berg, M. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00200-3 · Cited by 715
Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics
Friedman, C. P., & Wyatt, J. C. (1997) · Computers and medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2685-5 · Cited by 450
Kaplan, B. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00184-8 · Cited by 380
Yearbook of Medical Informatics
International Medical Informatics Association (2017) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-00034612 · Cited by 296
Massaro, T. A. (1993) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199301000-00003 · Cited by 287
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8775 · Cited by 2,887
The Impact of eHealth on the Quality and Safety of Health Care: A Systematic Overview
Black, A. D., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Anandan, C., Cresswell, K., Bokun, T., McKinstry, B., Procter, R., Majeed, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387 · Cited by 1,442
Häyrinen, K., Saranto, K., & Nykänen, P. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.09.001 · Cited by 1,374
A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies
van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., van Limburg, M., Ossebaard, H. C., Kelders, S. M., Eysenbach, G., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1672 · Cited by 1,126
Yusof, M. M., Kuljis, J., Papazafeiropoulou, A., & Stergioulas, L. K. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.011 · Cited by 740
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Meijden, M. J.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-01-28
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 235-243
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC342046
- OpenAlex
- W2108856141
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 2.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- clinical information systems, system success factors, system quality, information quality, user satisfaction, organizational impact, organizational culture, system evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Computer Systems, Consumer Behavior, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Nursing Records, Organizational Innovation, Organizational Culture, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Computer Security
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
