Cited by 275Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Policy and ManagementTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Predicting the Adoption of Electronic Health Records by Physicians: When Will Health Care be Paperless?

Open access
Ford, E. W., Menachemi, N., Phillips, M. T.·2006·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was threefold. First, we gathered and synthesized the historic literature regarding electronic health record (EHR) adoption rates among physicians in small practices (ten or fewer members). Next, we constructed models to project estimated future EHR adoption trends and timelines. We then determined the likelihood of achieving universal EHR adoption in the near future and articulate how barriers can be overcome in the small and solo practice medical environment. DESIGN: This study used EHR adoption data from six previous surveys of small practices to estimate historic market penetration rates. Applying technology diffusion theory, three future adoption scenarios, optimistic, best estimate, and conservative, are empirically derived. MEASUREMENT: EHR adoption parameters, external and internal coefficients of influence, are estimated using Bass diffusion models. RESULTS: All three EHR scenarios display the characteristic diffusion S curve that is indicative that the technology is likely to achieve significant market penetration, given enough time. Under current conditions, EHR adoption will reach its maximum market share in 2024 in the small practice setting. CONCLUSION: The promise of improved care quality and cost control has prompted a call for universal EHR adoption by 2014. The EHR products now available are unlikely to achieve full diffusion in a critical market segment within the time frame being targeted by policy makers.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1913

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • eHealth implementation may require remodelling of the job design of interconnected health professionals to incorporate technology effectively and efficiently.

    “The change does not occur simply from the introduction of ICT infrastructure but may also require remodelling of the job design of interconnected health professionals to effectively and efficiently incorporate technology [15].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Versel N. Connect the docs. Modern Healthcare. 2004;34:48.
  2. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.
  3. Robert-Ribes J. Predicting the speed of technology introduction. Aust Venture Capital J. 2005;131:34-6.
  4. Blair R. EMRs, quality of care and patient perception. Health Manag Technol. 2003;24:38.
  5. Rogoski RR. You say tomato and. Health Manag Technol. 2002; 23:24.
  6. Brailer DJ. EHRs: the Fed's big push. Med Econ. 2004;81:28-9.
  7. Terry NP. Electronic health records: international, structural and legal perspectives. J Law Med. 2004;12:26-39.
  8. Institute of Medicine. Key capabilities of an electronic health record system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.
  9. Swartz N. U.S. hands out technology grants for healthcare. Inform Manag J. 2005;39:14.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ford, E. W., Menachemi, N., & Phillips, M. T.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Corresponding author
Ford, E. W.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2006-01-01
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
106-112
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2117057030
Cited by
275
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 26
FWCI
27.94
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)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
electronic health records, EHR adoption, small medical practices, Bass diffusion model, technology diffusion, market penetration
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Office Automation, Physicians, Social Support, Medical Records Systems, Computerized

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