Cited by 44Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout

Impact of artificial intelligence on electronic health record-related burnouts among healthcare professionals: systematic review

Open access
Sarraf, Berna, Ghasempour, Ali·2025·Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract

Introduction: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has revolutionized modern clinical practice, increasing efficiency, accessibility, and quality of care. Nevertheless, EHR-related workload has been considered as a significant contributor to healthcare professionals' burnout, a syndrome associated with emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. As modern health system explores technological solutions, artificial intelligence (AI) has gained attention for its potential to facilitate documentation processes and alleviate cognitive burden. This systematic review aims to explore and understand the impact of artificial intelligence on burnout associated with electronic health records among healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Relevant studies published between 2019 and 2025 were retrieved from three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy included three main domains: artificial intelligence, electronic health records, and healthcare professional burnout. Eligible included studies are peer-reviewed original research articles that evaluated the impact of AI-based technologies on burnout among healthcare professionals. The screening and selection processes were carried out by following the PRISMA framework. Methodological quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Results: Of the 287 records initially identified, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of identified studies were conducted in the United States and Canada. The identified interventions were categorized into four domains: ambient artificial intelligence scribes, clinical decision support systems, large language models, and natural language processing tools. Most studies focused on mitigating documentation or inbox-related burdens and reported positive outcomes, including decreased documentation time, enhanced workflow efficiency, and reduced symptoms of burnout among healthcare professionals. Nonetheless, several methodological limitations were observed, including the absence of control groups, small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods, which constrain the generalizability of the findings. Discussion: The integration of artificial intelligence into electronic health record systems may have potential to alleviate documentation burden and inbox management burden. Although preliminary findings are promising, further methodologically robust research is necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes, assess usability across diverse clinical contexts, and ensure the safe and effective implementation of AI technologies in routine healthcare practice. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/pevfj.

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 · 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1628831

Cites

45 of 45 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sarraf, B., & Ghasempour, A.
Affiliations
Tallinn University of Technology (EE)
Corresponding author
  • Sarraf, Berna
  • Ghasempour, Ali
Venue
Frontiers in Public Health
Published
2025-07-03
Volume
13
Pages
1628831-1628831
ISSN
2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4412012638
Cited by
40
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 4
FWCI
5.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Keywords
artificial intelligence, electronic health records, burnout, healthcare workers, clinical documentation burden, ambient AI scribes, clinical decision support systems, large language models, natural language processing, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Burnout, Professional, Health Personnel, Humans, Electronic Health Records

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