Cited by 244Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationNursing education and management

Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Nursing Care: Results of an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Open access
Rouleau, Geneviève, Gagnon, Marie-Pierre, Côté, José, Payne-Gagnon, Julie, Hudson, Emilie, Dubois, Carl-Ardy·2017·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are becoming an impetus for quality health care delivery by nurses. The use of ICTs by nurses can impact their practice, modifying the ways in which they plan, provide, document, and review clinical care. OBJECTIVE: An overview of systematic reviews was conducted to develop a broad picture of the dimensions and indicators of nursing care that have the potential to be influenced by the use of ICTs. METHODS: Quantitative, mixed-method, and qualitative reviews that aimed to evaluate the influence of four eHealth domains (eg, management, computerized decision support systems [CDSSs], communication, and information systems) on nursing care were included. We used the nursing care performance framework (NCPF) as an extraction grid and analytical tool. This model illustrates how the interplay between nursing resources and the nursing services can produce changes in patient conditions. The primary outcomes included nurses' practice environment, nursing processes, professional satisfaction, and nursing-sensitive outcomes. The secondary outcomes included satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ICTs according to nurses' and patients' perspectives. Reviews published in English, French, or Spanish from January 1, 1995 to January 15, 2015, were considered. RESULTS: A total of 5515 titles or abstracts were assessed for eligibility and full-text papers of 72 articles were retrieved for detailed evaluation. It was found that 22 reviews published between 2002 and 2015 met the eligibility criteria. Many nursing care themes (ie, indicators) were influenced by the use of ICTs, including time management; time spent on patient care; documentation time; information quality and access; quality of documentation; knowledge updating and utilization; nurse autonomy; intra and interprofessional collaboration; nurses' competencies and skills; nurse-patient relationship; assessment, care planning, and evaluation; teaching of patients and families; communication and care coordination; perspectives of the quality of care provided; nurses and patients satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ICTs; patient comfort and quality of life related to care; empowerment; and functional status. CONCLUSIONS: The findings led to the identification of 19 indicators related to nursing care that are impacted by the use of ICTs. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first attempt to apply NCPF in the ICTs' context. This broad representation could be kept in mind when it will be the time to plan and to implement emerging ICTs in health care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42014014762; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014014762 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pIhMLBZh).

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 · 10.2196/jmir.6686

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • It was not feasible to align the included interventions within a specific framework based on intended purpose and eHealth classification.

    “Since all the interventions incorporated management and/or communication systems as integral components of virtual care, it was not feasible to align within a specific framework based on intended purpose and eHealth classification [50].”

    From Effect of virtual care in type 2 diabetes management – a systematic umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [50]

    In Results > Description of the Reviews (page unavailable), the paper says eHealth services may belong to more than one domain, supporting the difficulty of assigning a single classification. It nevertheless classifies the reviewed interventions by eHealth domain; its stated difficulty with a framework concerns categorizing findings about nursing-care impacts, not an inability to align interventions by intended purpose and eHealth classification. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

12 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [4]Institute of Medicine The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health 2011 Washington, DC The National Academies press 24983041
  2. [9]Nagel DA Penner JL Conceptualizing telehealth in nursing practice: advancing a conceptual model to fill a virtual gap J Holist Nurs 2016 03 34 1 91 104 10.1177/0898010115580236 25858897 0898010115580236 25858897 · DOI
  3. [26]Becker L Oxman A Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2011 2016-09-20 Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_22/22_overviews_of_reviews.htm
  4. [28]O'Connor D Green S Higgins J Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2011 2016-09-21 Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_5/5_defining_the_review_question_and_developing_criteria_for.htm
  5. [33]Shea BJ Grimshaw JM Wells GA Boers M Andersson N Hamel C Porter AC Tugwell P Moher D Bouter LM Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 7 10 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 17302989 1471-2288-7-10 17302989 PMC1810543 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [36]Sharif MO Janjua-Sharif FN Sharif FN Ali H Ahmed F Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly Oral Health Dent Manag 2013 03 12 1 9 16 23474576 23474576
  7. [41]Finkelstein J Knight A Marinopoulos S Gibbons MC Berger Z Aboumatar H Wilson RF Lau BD Sharma R Bass EB Enabling patient-centered care through health information technology Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2012 06 206 1 1531 24422882 PMC4781073 24422882
  8. [43]McKibbon KA Lokker C Handler SM Dolovich LR Holbrook AM O'Reilly D Tamblyn R Basu R Troyan S Roshanov PS Archer NP Raina P Enabling medication management through health information technology (Health IT) Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2011 04 201 1 951 23126642 PMC4781568 23126642
  9. [53]Poissant L Pereira J Tamblyn R Kawasumi Y The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005 10 12 5 505 16 10.1197/jamia.M1700 15905487 M1700 15905487 PMC1205599 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [63]Gagnon M Breton E Paré G Courcy F Côté J Trépanier A Fortin J Rouillon F [The impact of information and communication technologies on nurse retention] Sante Publique 2013 25 3 305 13 24007906 24007906

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rouleau, G., Gagnon, M.-P., Côté, J., Payne-Gagnon, J., Hudson, E., & Dubois, C.-A.
Affiliations
  • Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2017-04-25
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
e122
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2608106098
Cited by
244
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
Keywords
information and communication technologies, nursing care, e-health, computerized decision support systems, nursing-sensitive outcomes, nursing work environment, nursing documentation, nursing autonomy, interprofessional collaboration, nurse-patient relationship, patient satisfaction, nursing competencies, care coordination, nursing education, nursing process, nursing-sensitive indicators, quality of care, nursing-sensitive quality indicators
MeSH terms
Humans, Nursing, Patient Care Planning, Quality of Health Care, Quality of Life, Review Literature as Topic, Telemedicine, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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