Cited by 305Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 163 of the 164 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Electronic Health Record Implementation and Barriers to Adoption and Use: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Analysis of the Content

Open access

Abstract

Despite the great advances in the field of electronic health records (EHRs) over the past 25 years, implementation and adoption challenges persist, and the benefits realized remain below expectations. This scoping review aimed to present current knowledge about the effects of EHR implementation and the barriers to EHR adoption and use. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore Digital Library and ACM Digital Library for studies published between January 2005 and May 2020. In total, 7641 studies were identified of which 142 met the criteria and attained the consensus of all researchers on inclusion. Most studies (n = 91) were published between 2017 and 2019 and 81 studies had the United States as the country of origin. Both positive and negative effects of EHR implementation were identified, relating to clinical work, data and information, patient care and economic impact. Resource constraints, poor/insufficient training and technical/educational support for users, as well as poor literacy and skills in technology were the identified barriers to adoption and use that occurred frequently. Although this review did not conduct a quality analysis of the included papers, the lack of uniformity in the use of EHR definitions and detailed contextual information concerning the study settings could be observed.

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 · 10.3390/life10120327

Cites

163 of 163 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 164 references

1 of the 164 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Institute of Medicine—Committee on Improving the Patient Record (1997). The Computer-Based Patient Record an Essential Technology for Health Care, National Academy Press. Revised Edition.
  2. Voss, 2016, European Union Data Privacy Law Reform: General Data Protection Regulation, Privacy Shield, and the Right to Delisting, Bus. Lawyer, 72, 221
  3. Liew, C.L., and Harjadinata, J. (2017, January 19–23). Patient Portal Service: An Exploration of Patients’ Experience and Perception. Proceedings of the ICDS 2017: The Eleventh International Conference on Digital Society, Nice, France.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 305

Metadata

Authors
Tsai, C. H., Eghdam, A., Davoody, N., Wright, G., Flowerday, S., & Koch, S.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Rhodes University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Koch, Sabine
Venue
Life
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-12-04
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
327
ISSN
2075-1729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3109639294
Cited by
305
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Life (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd (2016-07324)
  • South African Medical Research Council (2016-07324)
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 › Research and Theory › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
electronic health records, EHR implementation, clinical work, patient care, economic impact, resource constraints, employee training, technical support, digital literacy, technological competence

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