Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Correlates of Electronic Health Record Adoption in Office Practices: A Statewide Survey

Open access
Simon, S. R., Kaushal, R., Cleary, P. D., Jenter, C. A., Volk, L. A., Poon, E. G., Orav, E. J., Lo, H. G., Williams, D. H., Bates, D. W.·2007·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite emerging evidence that electronic health records (EHRs) can improve the efficiency and quality of medical care, most physicians in office practice in the United States do not currently use an EHR. We sought to measure the correlates of EHR adoption. DESIGN: Mailed survey to a stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts in 2005, with one physician per practice randomly selected for survey. MEASUREMENTS: EHR adoption rates. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (1345/1884). Overall, while 45% of physicians were using an EHR, EHRs were present in only 23% of practices. In multivariate analysis, practice size was strongly correlated with EHR adoption; 52% of practices with 7 or more physicians had an EHR, as compared with 14% of solo practices (adjusted odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval, 2.28-5.87). Hospital-based practices (adjusted odds ratio, 2.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-3.91) and practices that teach medical students or residents (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-3.31) were more likely to have an EHR. The most frequently cited barriers to adoption were start-up financial costs (84%), ongoing financial costs (82%), and loss of productivity (81%). CONCLUSIONS: While almost half of physicians in Massachusetts are using an EHR, fewer than one in four practices in Massachusetts have adopted EHRs. Adoption rates are lower in smaller practices, those not affiliated with hospitals, and those that do not teach medical students or residents. Interventions to expand EHR use must address both financial and non-financial barriers, especially among smaller practices.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1197/jamia.m2187

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Simon, S. R., Kaushal, R., Cleary, P. D., Jenter, C. A., Volk, L. A., Poon, E. G., Orav, E. J., Lo, H. G., Williams, D. H., & Bates, D. W.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2007-01-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
110-117
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2113832486
Cited by
271
References
2
FWCI
36.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Correlates of Electronic Health Record Adoption in Office Practices: A Statewide Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m2187
The paper
Simon, S. R., Kaushal, R., Cleary, P. D., Jenter, C. A., Volk, L. A., Poon, E. G., Orav, E. J., Lo, H. G., Williams, D. H., & Bates, D. W. (2007). Correlates of Electronic Health Record Adoption in Office Practices: A Statewide Survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m2187

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.