ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Development an extended-information success system model (ISSM) based on nurses' point of view for hospital EHRs: a combined framework and questionnaire.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- From curiosity to continuance: explaining nursing students' continuance learning intention in virtual simulation using an integrated ECM-TAM.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Barriers to the implementation of large-scale electronic health record systems in primary healthcare centers: a mixed-methods study in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A model for transforming the digital landscape of medical universities.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- A Data-Driven Paradigm for a Resilient and Sustainable Integrated Health Information Systems for Health Care Applications.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding the hospital EHR success rate has great benefits for hospitals. The present study aimed to 1-Propose an extended-ISSM framework and a questionnaire in a systematic manner for EHR evaluation based on nurses' perspectives, 2-Determine the EHR success rate, and 3-Explore the effective factors contributing to EHR success.
methodsThe proposed framework was developed using ISSM, TAM3, TTF, HOT-FIT, and literature review in seven steps. A self-administrated structured 65-items questionnaire was developed with CVI: 90.27% and CVR: 94.34%. Construct validity was conducted using EFA and CFA. Eleven factors were identified, collectively accounting for 71.4% of the total variance. In the EFA step, 15 questions and two questions in EFA were excluded. Finally, 48 items remained in the framework including dimensions of technology, human, organization, ease of use, usefulness, and net benefits. The overall Cronbach's alpha value was 93.4%. In addition, the hospital EHR success rate was determined and categorized. In addition, effective factors on EHR success were explored.
resultsIn total, 86 nurses participated in the study. On average, the "total hospital EHR success rate" was moderate. The total EHR success rates was ranging from 47.09 to 74.96%. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there was a significant relationship between "gender" and "self-efficacy" (p-value: 0.042). A reverse relation between "years of experience using computers" and "training" (p-value: 0.012) was observed. "Years of experience using EHR" as well as "education level" (p-value: 0.001) and "ease of use" had a reverse relationship (p-value: 0.034).
conclusionsOur findings underscore the EHR success based on nurses' viewpoint in a developing country. Our results provide an instrument for comparison of EHR success rates in various hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.