Cited by 1,311Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

The Benefits Of Health Information Technology: A Review Of The Recent Literature Shows Predominantly Positive Results

Buntin, Melinda Beeuwkes, Burke, Matthew F., Hoaglin, Michael C., Blumenthal, David·2011·Health Affairs

Abstract

An unprecedented federal effort is under way to boost the adoption of electronic health records and spur innovation in health care delivery. We reviewed the recent literature on health information technology to determine its effect on outcomes, including quality, efficiency, and provider satisfaction. We found that 92 percent of the recent articles on health information technology reached conclusions that were positive overall. We also found that the benefits of the technology are beginning to emerge in smaller practices and organizations, as well as in large organizations that were early adopters. However, dissatisfaction with electronic health records among some providers remains a problem and a barrier to achieving the potential of health information technology. These realities highlight the need for studies that document the challenging aspects of implementing health information technology more specifically and how these challenges might be addressed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In a meta-analysis of 21 randomized trials that included 5715 patients who had suffered heart failure, the cost per patient of treatment including remote monitoring was about 300-1000 euros less than the cost of more conventional treatment.

    “In a meta-analysis of 21 randomized trials that included 5715 patients who had suffered heart failure, the cost per patient of treatment including remote monitoring was about 300-1000 euros less than the cost of more conventional treatment.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C., & Blumenthal, D.
Affiliations
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services (US)
  • Matthew F. Burke is a policy analyst at the ONC.
  • Michael C. Hoaglin is a former policy analyst at the ONC.
  • Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (US)
Venue
Health Affairs
Published
2011-03
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
464-471
ISSN
  • 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-5208
OpenAlex
W2150217040
Cited by
1,311
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 104 · 2016: 119 · 2015: 115 · 2014: 113 · 2013: 94 · 2012: 62
FWCI
149.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
health information technology, electronic health records, quality of care, health care efficiency, provider satisfaction, technology adoption, implementation barriers, small practices, health care delivery innovation
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Diffusion of Innovation, Medical Informatics, Quality of Health Care, United States, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Efficiency, Organizational

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