ArticleNursing open2026
The Impact of Electronic Health Records on Nurses and Nursing Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.
Article in Nursing open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo map evidence and identify research gaps from primary studies on the impact of electronic health records (EHRs) on nurses and nursing care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) from 2015 to 2024.
designA scoping literature review. REVIEW
methodsGuided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for evidence synthesis, two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction using Covidence. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHO Global Index Medicus databases was conducted in May 2024.
resultsOf 6122 studies, 41 were included. Most employed quantitative methods, but often did not use validated tools or theoretical frameworks. EHRs improved documentation, but some quality deficits remain. Depersonalized care, workflow disruptions, reduced nurse-patient interaction, and technostress were also reported. Regional research output disparities emerged.
conclusionsThe evidence demonstrates that EHRs enhanced nursing documentation and data access, yet were also associated with data quality deficits, increased burden, workflow disruption, technostress, and depersonalized care in LMICs. The LMIC regional research disparities and theoretically underdeveloped evidence base, particularly from Sub-Saharan Africa, necessitate nurse-led investigations of documentation quality, workload, care disruption and nurse well-being to inform context-sensitive practice, education and policy. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The findings will guide nurses and policymakers in this region to optimize the use of digital health systems, promote equitable access, stimulate further research, provide solutions, and support effective ehealth transformation in LMICs. IMPACT: This review identifies critical gaps in current research on electronic health records, highlighting both benefits and drawbacks for nurses and nursing care. The findings will guide nurses and policymakers in this region to improve digital systems implementation and inform future nursing research and policy development. REPORTING
methodReported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/gntks.
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.