ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022
Digital disparities among healthcare workers in typing speed between generations, genders, and medical specialties: cross sectional study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Typing Proficiency among Physicians in Internal Medicine: A Pilot Study of Speed and Performance.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Acutely ill children, safety netting, and NHS printers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- I'm not burned out. This is how I write notes.JAMIA open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the typing skills of healthcare professionals.
designCross sectional study.
settingTwo large tertiary medical centres in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
participants2690 hospital employees working in patient care, research, or medical education.
main outcome measuresParticipants completed a custom built, web based, Santa themed, typing test in 60 seconds and filled out an associated questionnaire. The primary outcome was corrected typing speed, defined as crude typing speed (words per minute) multiplied by accuracy (correct characters as a percentage of total characters in the final transcribed text). Feelings towards administrative tasks scored on the Visual Analogue Scale to Weigh Respondents' Internalised Typing Enjoyment (VAS-WRITE), in which 0 represents the most negative and 100 the most positive feelings towards administration, were also recorded.
resultsBetween 18 and 21 May 2021, a representative cohort of 2690 study participants was recruited (1942 (72.2%) were younger than 40 years; 2065 (76.8%) were women). Respondents' mean typing speed was 60.1 corrected words per minute (standard deviation 20.8; range 8.0-136.6) with substantial differences between professions and specialties, in which physicians in internal medicine were the fastest among the medical professionals. Typing speed decreased significantly with every age decade (rho -0.51, P<0.001), and people with a history of completing a typing course were more than 20% faster than those who had not (mean difference 12.1 words (standard error 0.8), (95% confidence interval 10.6 to 13.6), P<0.001). The corrected typing speed did not differ between genders (0.5 (0.9) words, (-1.4 to 2.4), P=0.61). Women were less negative towards administration than were men (mean difference VAS-WRITE score 7.68 (standard error 1.17), (95% confidence interval 5.33 to 10.03), P<0.001). Of all professional groups, medical staff reported the most negative feelings towards administration (mean VAS-WRITE score of 33.5 (standard deviation 22.9)).
conclusionsImportant differences were reported in typing proficiency between age groups, professions, and medical specialties. Specific groups are at a disadvantage in an increasingly digitalised healthcare system, and these data could inform the implementation of training modules and alternative methods of data entry to level the playing field.
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.