FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2095807359> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2095807359 endingPage "e3" @default.
• W2095807359 startingPage "e3" @default.
• W2095807359 abstract "Physician office practices are increasingly adopting electronic medical records (EMRs). Therefore, the impact of such systems needs to be evaluated to ensure they are helping practices to realize expected benefits. In addition to experimental and observational studies examining objective impacts, the user's subjective view needs to be understood, since ultimate acceptance and use of the system depends on them. Surveys are commonly used to elicit these views.To determine which areas of EMR implementation in office practices have been addressed in survey-based research studies, to compare the perceived impacts between users and nonusers for the most-addressed areas, and to contribute to the knowledge regarding survey-based research for assessing the impact of health information systems (HIS).We searched databases and systematic review citations for papers published between 2000 and 2012 (May) that evaluated the perceived impact of using an EMR system in an office-based practice, were based on original data, had providers as the primary end user, and reported outcome measures related to the system's positive or negative impact. We identified all the reported metrics related to EMR use and mapped them to the Clinical Adoption Framework to analyze the gap. We then subjected the impact-specific areas with the most reported results to a meta-analysis, which examined overall positive and negative perceived impacts for users and nonusers.We selected 19 papers for the review. We found that most impact-specific areas corresponded to the micro level of the framework and that appropriateness or effectiveness and efficiency were well addressed through surveys. However, other areas such as access, which includes patient and caregiver participation and their ability to access services, had very few metrics. We selected 7 impact-specific areas for meta-analysis: security and privacy; quality of patient care or clinical outcomes; patient-physician relationship and communication; communication with other providers; accessibility of records and information; business or practice efficiency; and costs or savings. All the results for accessibility of records and information and for communication with providers indicated a positive view. The area with the most mixed results was security and privacy.Users sometimes were likelier than nonusers to have a positive view of the selected areas. However, when looking at the two groups separately, we often found more positive views for most of the examined areas regardless of use status. Despite limitations of a small number of papers and their heterogeneity, the results of this review are promising in terms of finding positive perceptions of EMR adoption for users and nonusers. In addition, we identified issues related to survey-based research for HIS evaluation, particularly regarding constructs for evaluation and quality of study design and reporting." @default.
• W2095807359 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2095807359 creator A5004100805 @default.
• W2095807359 creator A5038376528 @default.
• W2095807359 creator A5085426335 @default.
• W2095807359 date "2012-07-28" @default.
• W2095807359 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2095807359 title "Perceived Impact of Electronic Medical Records in Physician Office Practices: A Review of Survey-Based Research" @default.
• W2095807359 cites W1526941025 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W1706889401 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W1956824864 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W1963918827 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W1973420793 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W1990743371 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2019341969 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2054370988 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2075390271 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2077123864 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2086254292 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2092660878 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2093084017 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2099079576 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2101855443 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2108856141 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2110134900 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2113457214 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2114032884 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2117057030 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2121197500 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2130229588 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2154384183 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2155857546 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2171209178 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W2171733484 @default.
• W2095807359 cites W72667439 @default.
• W2095807359 doi "https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.2113" @default.
• W2095807359 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3626136" @default.
• W2095807359 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23611832" @default.
• W2095807359 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2095807359 type Work @default.
• W2095807359 sameAs 2095807359 @default.
• W2095807359 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2095807359 countsByYear W20958073592014 @default.
• W2095807359 countsByYear W20958073592015 @default.
• W2095807359 countsByYear W20958073592016 @default.
• W2095807359 countsByYear W20958073592018 @default.
• W2095807359 countsByYear W20958073592019 @default.
• W2095807359 countsByYear W20958073592020 @default.
• W2095807359 countsByYear W20958073592023 @default.
• W2095807359 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2095807359 hasAuthorship W2095807359A5004100805 @default.
• W2095807359 hasAuthorship W2095807359A5038376528 @default.
• W2095807359 hasAuthorship W2095807359A5085426335 @default.
• W2095807359 hasBestOaLocation W20958073591 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C195910791 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C3018060332 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C126838900 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C142724271 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C15744967 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C195910791 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C23131810 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C3018060332 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C509550671 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C512399662 @default.
• W2095807359 hasConceptScore W2095807359C71924100 @default.
• W2095807359 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2095807359 hasLocation W20958073591 @default.
• W2095807359 hasLocation W20958073592 @default.
• W2095807359 hasLocation W20958073593 @default.
• W2095807359 hasLocation W20958073594 @default.
• W2095807359 hasLocation W20958073595 @default.
• W2095807359 hasOpenAccess W2095807359 @default.
• W2095807359 hasPrimaryLocation W20958073591 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2091636677 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2327516395 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2333145905 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2381274092 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2416388054 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2765980456 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W2976382042 @default.
• W2095807359 hasRelatedWork W9192059 @default.
• W2095807359 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W2095807359 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2095807359 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2095807359 magId "2095807359" @default.
• W2095807359 workType "article" @default.