ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Facilitator and Barrier to Health Information System Use from Health Professionals Perspective: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to present factors that potentially influenced system use by identifying facilitator or barrier to acceptance from the perspective of healthcare professionals. Methods: A scoping review was used in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The literature search was conducted on two electronic databases, Scopus and MEDLINE through PubMed, limiting the publication timeframe from January 2013 to December 2023. Moreover, a developed search strategy was used based on keywords and MeSH terms derived from the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) components. The inclusion criteria were studies that discussed information system in healthcare, incorporated healthcare professionals who directly engaged with health information system (HIS), conducted within healthcare settings, identified facilitator or barrier to the use of information system in healthcare, and were available in full-text English. Barrier and facilitator were considered as factors impeding and promoting HIS use, respectively. The scoping review adopted a thematic analysis. Results: The results showed that a total of 79 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. A total of 16 distinct facilitators and 16 barriers were identified, which were then grouped into four categories, comprising colleague and social support, organizational, individual, as well as technological and technical contexts. The most frequently mentioned facilitator was usefulness and simplification of daily tasks, while the predominant barrier was lack of technical support. Conclusion: The systematic mapping of facilitator and barrier provided a foundation for policymakers and healthcare professionals in decision-making processes to enhance acceptance HIS.
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.