Adherence factors to paperless primary healthcare: a focus group study

1. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S et al. Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care: systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 742-52.10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-0012516702590Search in Google Scholar

2. Dabbs ADV, Myers BA, McCurry K, Dunbar-Jacob J, Hawkins R, Begey A, Dew Ma. User-centred design and interactive health technologies for patients. CIN - Comp Informat Nurs 2009; 27: 175-83.10.1097/NCN.0b013e31819f7c7c281853619411947Search in Google Scholar

3. Hammond WE. Seamless care: what is it, what is its value, what does it require, when might we get it? In: Blobel B. Seamless care - safe care. The challenges of interoperability and patient safety in healthcare: proceedings of The EFMI Special Topic Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2010: 3-13.Search in Google Scholar

4. Or CKL, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16: 550 -60.10.1197/jamia.M2888270525919390112Search in Google Scholar

5. Walsh SH. The clinician’s perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care. BMJ 2004; 328: 1184-7.10.1136/bmj.328.7449.118441110315142929Search in Google Scholar

6. Leatt P, Shea C, Studer M, Wang V. IT solutions for patient safety-best practices for successful implementation in healthcare. Electron Healthc 2006; 4: 94-104.Search in Google Scholar

7. Mitchell E, Sullivan F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97. BMJ 2001; 322: 279-82.10.1136/bmj.322.7281.2792658211157532Search in Google Scholar

8. Flynn D, Peggy Gregory P, Makki H, Gabbay M. Expectations and experiences of eHealth in primary care: a qualitative practice-based investigation. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78: 588-604.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.03.00819482542Search in Google Scholar

9. Santana S, Lausen B, Bujnowska-Fedak M, Chronaki C et al. Online communication between doctors and patients in Europe: status and perspectives. J Med Internet Res 2010; 12: e2.10.2196/jmir.1281295623120551011Search in Google Scholar

10. Lium JT, Faxvaag A. Removal of paper-based health records from Norwegian hospitals: effects on clinical workflow. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 124: 1031.Search in Google Scholar

11. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Cater R, Wynn A, Hammersley V et al. The electronic patient record in primary care-regression or progression?: a cross sectional study. BMJ 2003; 326: 1439-43.10.1136/bmj.326.7404.143916225612829558Search in Google Scholar

12. Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, Seger D, Kuperman GJ, Ma’Luf N et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6: 313-21.10.1136/jamia.1999.006603136137210428004Search in Google Scholar

13. Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, McKinstry B, Procter R, Majeed A, Sheikh A. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 2011; 8: e10003872011. Available October 10, 2011 at: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info.Search in Google Scholar

14. Kolšek M. Implementing electronic medical record in family practice in Slovenia and other former Yugoslav republics: barriers and requirements. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2009; 137: 664-9.10.2298/SARH0912664KSearch in Google Scholar

15. European Commission - Information Society and Media Directorate General. Benchmarking ICT use among general practitioners in Europe: final report. Bon: Empirica, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

16. Terry AL, Thorpe CF, Giles G, Brown JB, Harris SB, Reid GJ et al. Implementing electronic health records: key factors in primary care. Can Fam Physician 2008; 54: 730-6.Search in Google Scholar

17. Winkelman WJ, Leonard KJ, Rossos PG. Patient-perceived usefulness of online electronic medical records: employing grounded theory in the development of information and communication technologies for use by patients living with chronic illness. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12: 306-14.10.1197/jamia.M1712109046215684128Search in Google Scholar

18. Ross SE, Todd J, Moore LA, Beaty BL, Wittevrongel L, Lin CT. Expectations of patients and physicians regarding patientaccessible medical records. J Med Internet Res 2005; 7: e13.10.2196/jmir.7.2.e13155064215914460Search in Google Scholar

19. Neville RG, GreeneAC, Lewis S. Patient and health care professional views and experiences of computer agentsupported health care. Inf Prim Care 2006; 14: 11-5.Search in Google Scholar

20. Garrido MV, Zentner A, Busse R. The effects of gatekeeping: a systematic review of the literature. Scan J Primary Health Care 2011; 29: 28-38.10.3109/02813432.2010.537015334793521192758Search in Google Scholar

21. Bodenheimer T, Lo B, Casalino L. Primary care physicians should be coordinators, not gatekeepers. JAMA 1999; 281: 2045-9.10.1001/jama.281.21.204510359396Search in Google Scholar

22. Seifert B, Svab I, Madis T, Kersnik J, Windak A, Steflova A et al. Perspectives of family medicine in Central and Eastern Europe. Family Practice 2008; 25: 113-8.10.1093/fampra/cmn00918304970Search in Google Scholar

23. Petek-Ster M, Svab I, Zivcec-Kalan G. Factors related to consultation time: experience in Slovenia. Scan J Primary Health Care 2008; 26: 29-34.10.1080/02813430701760789340662418297560Search in Google Scholar

24. Boerma, WGW, Van Der Zee J, Fleming DM. Service profiles of general practitioners in Europe. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: 481-6.Search in Google Scholar

25. Allen J, Gay B, Crebolder H, Heyrman J, Svab I, Ram P et al. The European definition of general practice / family medicine - short version. Euract, 2005. Available September 10, 2011 at: http://www.euract.eu/official-documents/finish/3-officialdocuments/95-european-definition-of-general-practicefamilymedicine-2005-short-version.Search in Google Scholar

26. Drnovšek S, Giest S, Dumortier J, Artmann J. eHealth strategies study, country brief: Slovenia. European Commission, DG Information Society and Media, ICT for Health Unit. Bonn, Brussels, 2010. Available September 10, 2012 at: http://ehealthstrategies. eu/database/documents/Slovenia_CountryBrief_ eHStrategies.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

27. Kersnik J, Bossman P, Svab I. The patient’s leading reasons for choosing personal family physician. Zdrav Var 1998; 37: 185-90.Search in Google Scholar

28. Klancar D, Kersnik J, Svab I. The vision of health centers in Slovenia. Zdrav Var 2010; 49: 37-43.10.2478/v10152-010-0005-xSearch in Google Scholar

29. Jha AK, Doolan D, Grandt D, Scott T, Bates DW et al. The use of health information technology in seven nations. Int J Med Inform 2006; 77: 848-54.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.00718657471Search in Google Scholar

30. Menachemi N, Brooks RG. EHR and other IT adoption among physicians: results of a large-scale statewide analysis. J Health Care Inform Manag 2006; 20: 79-87.Search in Google Scholar

31. Anderson JG. Social, ethical and legal barriers to e-health. Int J Med Inform 2007; 56: 480-3.Search in Google Scholar

32. Ventres W, Kooienga S, Vuckovic N, Marlin R, Nygren P, Stewart V. Physicians, patients, and the electronic health record: an ethnographic analysis. Ann Fam Med 2006; 4: 124-31.10.1370/afm.425146700916569715Search in Google Scholar

33. Kaplan B, Maxwell JA. Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems: evaluating health care information systems: methods and applications. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2006: 30-55.Search in Google Scholar

34. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

35. Burrows D, Kendall S. Focus groups: what are they and how can they be used in nursing and health care research? Soc Sci Health 1997: 244-53.Search in Google Scholar

36. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage, 2002: 40-1.Search in Google Scholar

37. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. Br Med J 1995; 311: 299-302.10.1136/bmj.311.7000.29925503657633241Search in Google Scholar

38. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage, 1990.Search in Google Scholar

39. Polkinghorne DE. Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research. J Counsel Psychol 2005; 52: 137-45.10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137Search in Google Scholar

40. Rabiee F. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutrit Soc 2004; 63: 655-60.10.1079/PNS2004399Search in Google Scholar

41. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320: 114-6.10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114Search in Google Scholar

42. Kendall J. Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. West J Nurs Res 1999; 21: 743-57.10.1177/019394599902100603Search in Google Scholar

43. Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Report 2003; 84: 597-607.Search in Google Scholar

44. Guion LA. Triangulation: establishing the validity of qualitative studies. University of Florida FCS6014, 2002: 1-3. Available December 10, 2012 at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.Search in Google Scholar

45. Shaw NT. Learning from experience: a new approach to evaluating health information systems. J Comm Comp 2010; 7: 52-61.Search in Google Scholar

46. Rahimi B, Vimarlund V, Timpka T. Health information system implementation: a qualitative meta-analysis. J Med Syst 2009; 5: 359-68.10.1007/s10916-008-9198-9Search in Google Scholar

47. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications - some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64: 39-56.10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00184-8Search in Google Scholar

48. Christensen T, Grimsmo A. Instant availability of patient records, but diminished availability of patient information: a multi-method study of GP’s use of electronic patient records. BMC Med Inform Dec Making 2008; 8: 12.10.1186/1472-6947-8-12238645218373858Search in Google Scholar

49. Shcherbatykh I, Holbrook A, Thabane L, Dolovich L. Methodologic issues in health informatics trials: the complexities of complex interventions. JAMIA 2008; 15: 575-80.10.1197/jamia.M2518252804118579839Search in Google Scholar

50. Lilford RJ, Foster J, Pringle M. Evaluating eHealth: how to make evaluation more methodologically robust. PLoS Med 2009; 6: 1-5.10.1371/journal.pmed.1000186277739319956674Search in Google Scholar

51. Stroetmann KA, editor. European countries on their journey towards national eHealth infrastructures: eHealth strategies report. European Commission Information Society 2011. Available July 27, 2012 at: www.ehealth-strategies.eu/report/report.html.Search in Google Scholar

52. Welcome to epSOS - a European eHealth Project. Available January 01, 2012 at: http://www.epsos.eu/.Search in Google Scholar

53. epSOS Deliverable D3.1.2 Final definition of functional service requirements: ePrescription. Available January 01, 2012 at: 54. http://www.epsos.eu/fileadmin/content/pdf/deliverables/D3.1.2_Final_Definition_.Search in Google Scholar

55. Schade CP, Sullivan FM, Lusignan S. Madeley J. E-prescribing, efficiency, quality: lessons from the computerization of UK family practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 470-5.10.1197/jamia.M2041156179716799129Search in Google Scholar

56. Protti D. Comparison of information technology in general practice in 10 countries. Healthc Q 2007; 10: 107-16.Search in Google Scholar

57. Pluye P, Grad RM, Dunikowski LG, Stephenson R. Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: a literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74: 745-68.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.05.00415996515Search in Google Scholar

58. Tsiknakis M, Kouroubali A. Organizational factors affecting successful adoption of innovative eHealth services: a case study employing the FITT framework. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78: 39-52.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.00118723389Search in Google Scholar

59. Demiris G, Afrin Lb, Speedie S, Courtney Kl, Sondhi M, Vimarlund V et al. Patient-centered applications: use of information technology to promote disease management and wellness. A White Paper by the AMIA Knowledge in Motion Working Group. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15: 8-13.10.1197/jamia.M2492227488017947617Search in Google Scholar

60. Paré G, Sicotte C, Jaana M, Girouard D. Prioritizing the risk factors influencing the success of clinical information system projects: a Delphi study in Canada. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47: 251-9.10.3414/ME0512Search in Google Scholar

61. Sweidan M, Williamson M, Reeve JF, Harvey K, O’Neill JA, Schattner P, Snowdon T. Evaluation of features to support safety and quality in general practice clinical software. BMC Med Inform Dec Making 2011: 1127.10.1186/1472-6947-11-27Search in Google Scholar

62. Hoo WE, Parisi LL. Nursing informatics approach to analyzing staffing effectiveness indicators. J Nurs Care Qual 2005; 20: 215-9.10.1097/00001786-200507000-0000515965385Search in Google Scholar

63. Pizziferri L, Kittler AF, Volk LA et al. Primary care physician time utilization before and after implementation of an electronic health record: a time-motion study. J Biomed Inform 2005; 38: 176-88.10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.00915896691Search in Google Scholar

64. Lo H, Newmark L, Yoon C et al. Electronic health records in specialty care: a time-motion study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14: 609-15.10.1197/jamia.M2318197580417600102Search in Google Scholar

65. Richardson JE, Ash JS. Focus on clinical care and patient safety: a clinical decision support needs assessment of communitybased physicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: i28-35.10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000119324116121890874Search in Google Scholar

66. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005; 330: 765-73.10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F55588115767266Search in Google Scholar

67. Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, Rosas- Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005; 293: 1223-38.10.1001/jama.293.10.1223Search in Google Scholar

68. Short D, Frischer M, Bashford J. Barriers to the adoption of computerised decision support systems in general practice consultations: a qualitative study of GPs’ perspectives. Int J Med Inform 2004; 73: 357-62.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.02.001Search in Google Scholar

69. Christensen T, Grimsmo A. Expectations for the next generation of electronic patient records in primary care: a triangulated study. Inform Prim Care 2008; 16: 21-8.10.14236/jhi.v16i1.671Search in Google Scholar

70. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications-clinical decision support systems literature review. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64: 15-37.10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00183-6Search in Google Scholar

71. Winkelman WJ, Leonard KJ. Overcoming structural constraints to patient utilization of electronic medical records: a critical review and proposal for an evaluation framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 151-61.Search in Google Scholar

72. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Macfarlane F et al. How to spread good ideas: a systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D, 2004. Available May 10, 2011 at: http:// www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/38-finalreport.pdf.10.1002/9780470987407Search in Google Scholar

73. Faber MG. Design and introduction of an electronic patient record: how to involve users? Methods Inf Med 2003; 42: 371-5.Search in Google Scholar

74. Joos D, Chen Q, Jirjis J, Johnson KB. An electronic medical record in primary care: impact on satisfaction, work efficiency and clinic processes. Paper presented at: AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006.Search in Google Scholar

75. Smelcer JB. Jacobs HM, Kantrovich L. Usability of electronic medical records. J Usability Studies 2009, 4: 70-84.Search in Google Scholar

76. American Medical Association (AMA). Standardized user interface for electronic medical records. Available December 10, 2011 at: http://www.ama-assn.org.Search in Google Scholar

77. Holroyd-Leduc JM, Lorenzetti D, Straus SE, Sykes L, Quan H. The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: 732 -7.10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000019319798521659445Search in Google Scholar

78. Berg M. The search for synergy: interrelating medical work and patient care information systems. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42: 337-44.10.1055/s-0038-1634227Search in Google Scholar

79. Leskošek V. Social determinants of health: the indicators for measuring the impact of poverty on health. Zdrav Var 2012; 51: 21-32. 10.2478/v10152-012-0004-1Search in Google Scholar