
==== Front
BMC Health Serv Res
BMC Health Serv Res
BMC Health Services Research
1472-6963
BioMed Central London

39300456
11524
10.1186/s12913-024-11524-9
Research
The impact of eHealth use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era: a systematic review
Keuper Jelle j.keuper@nivel.nl

12
van Tuyl Lilian H. D. 1
de Geit Ellemarijn 1
Rijpkema Corinne 12
Vis Elize 1
Batenburg Ronald 13
Verheij Robert 12
1 https://ror.org/015xq7480 grid.416005.6 0000 0001 0681 4687 Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Otterstraat 118, Utrecht, 3513CR Netherlands
2 https://ror.org/04b8v1s79 grid.12295.3d 0000 0001 0943 3265 Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Professor Cobbenhagenlaan 125, Tilburg, 5037DB Netherlands
3 https://ror.org/016xsfp80 grid.5590.9 0000 0001 2293 1605 Department of Sociology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 4, Nijmegen, 6525GD Netherlands
19 9 2024
19 9 2024
2024
24 109911 10 2023
2 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

In recent years, eHealth has received much attention as an opportunity to increase efficiency within healthcare organizations. Adoption of eHealth might consequently help to solve perceived health workforce challenges, including labor shortages and increasing workloads among primary care professionals, who serve as the first point of contact for healthcare in many countries.

The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of general eHealth use and specific eHealth services use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era.

Methods

The databases of CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, IEEE Xplore, Medline ALL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched, using combinations of keywords including ‘eHealth’, ‘workload’, and ‘general practice’. Data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies were independently performed by at least two reviewers. Publications were included for the period 2010 – 2020, before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

In total, 208 studies describing the impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload were identified. We found that two eHealth services were mainly investigated within this context, namely electronic health records and digital communication services, and that the largest share of the included studies used a qualitative study design. Overall, a small majority of the studies found that eHealth led to an increase in general practice workload. However, results differed between the various types of eHealth services, as a large share of the studies also reported a reduction or no change in workload.

Conclusions

The impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload is ambiguous. While a small majority of the effects indicated that eHealth increased workload in general practice, a large share of the effects also showed that eHealth use reduced workload or had no impact. These results do not imply a definitive conclusion, which underscores the need for further explanatory research. Various factors, including the study setting, system design, and the phase of implementation, may influence this impact and should be taken into account when general practices adopt new eHealth services.

Study registration number

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020199897; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=199897.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-024-11524-9.

Keyword

eHealth
General practice
Workload
Impact
Systematic review
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

Within healthcare, the adoption of eHealth has received much attention in recent years as it promises, amongst others, to increase efficiency, improve quality, enable patient empowerment, encourage the patient and professional relationship, and make healthcare more equitable accessible, and of sufficient quality [1]. The term eHealth was barely used before 1999 and is defined by Eysenbach et al. in 2001 as “an emerging field in the intersection of medical informatics, public health and business, referring to health services and information delivered or enhanced through the Internet and related technologies. In a broader sense, the term characterizes not only a technical development, but also a state-of-mind, a way of thinking, an attitude, and a commitment for networked, global thinking, to improve health care locally, regionally, and worldwide by using information and communication technology” [1]. During the last two decades, this definition has been regularly used and cited in scientific literature. Since then, several other definitions of eHealth have emerged, various eHealth categorizations or taxonomies have been developed, and several types of eHealth services have been introduced and increasingly used in the various healthcare sectors that exist worldwide, including general practice care [2–9].

During the last decades, global healthcare has been confronted with several challenges, including aging populations, increasing prevalence of multimorbidity, the substitution of care, and recurring pandemics, causing healthcare staffing shortages [10–12]. These shortages are expected to rise even further in the coming years, causing increased workloads among healthcare professionals, such as general practice or primary care practice staff, which is usually the first-point-of-contact for the general population [13–15].

The potential increase in efficiency as a result of eHealth implementation and use within healthcare might help to solve these challenges. For example, Kochendorfer et al. [16] showed that shortly after the implementation of an eHealth application (i.e., an electronic health record (EHR)-generated rounding report), residents and attending physicians reported daily time savings of 44 min, indicating increased efficiency and a reduction in workload [16]. More recently, Ruiz Morilla et al. [17] also found that primary care physicians considered that eHealth (i.e., telemedicine) use would also improve their professional workload [17]. On the other hand, Adler et al. (2015) found in their study that the majority of family physicians who switched to a new EHR disagreed that it improved their productivity [18]. Further, Farr et al. (2018) showed that the use of an eHealth service (i.e., e-consultations) resulted in a duplication of general practitioners’ (GPs) workload. Besides these findings, other review studies investigating the impact of specific eHealth services (i.e., electronic clinical decision support tools and video consultation) within general practice care have reported mixed results regarding their influence on workload [19, 20].

During the last two decades, various research has been performed to study the impact of eHealth services use on healthcare and general practice staff workload. These studies particularly address the impact of one specific eHealth service on workload. Moreover, the studies performed during the COVID-19 pandemic are complicated by the pandemic’s impact on healthcare organization and the need to implement eHealth services in a fast and enforced manner. This makes reliable comparisons between findings on the impact of eHealth on healthcare professional workload from the pre-COVID-19 era and those from the COVID-19 period nearly impossible. A current omission in this field of research is a systematic analysis of the impact across the use of various types of eHealth services. This systematic review paper consequently aims to provide an overview of studies on the impact of eHealth services use on workload in general practices in the pre-COVID-19 era. This overview may also provide relevant insights for the future (i.e., post-COVID-19 era) implementation of eHealth services in general practice. We not only provide an overview of what can be concluded about the impact of both general and specific eHealth services use on general practice workload but also conduct a comparative analysis of these studies published in the period 2010 and April 2020, i.e. before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Study Registration

The PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) statement, including its checklist, was used as guidance for performing this systematic review [21]. The review methods used were determined in advance, and the study was registered at PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42020199897) to promote transparency about how this review was performed. The final data collection and analysis process did not require major adjustments compared to the initially determined methodology. For example, we decided at a later stage of our research process that we would use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for the quality assessment procedure, as we think that this tool matched well with the results of our literature search. Furthermore, two reviewers (EdG and EH) were included at a later stage of the study (i.e., at the data extraction, data analysis and quality assessment process). Finally, we decided to extract additional data from included references, which we thought were relevant.

Search strategy

The search string was composed with the help of a medical information specialist. The electronic databases of CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, IEEE Xplore, Medline ALL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, as grey literature source, were systematically searched for relevant papers published in English in April 2020. Only original, empirical, peer-reviewed studies investigating the impact of eHealth services implementation and use on general practice workload, which were published between January 2010 and April 2020, were included in this systematic review. Other types of studies or papers, including special reports, conference abstracts, letters, commentaries, protocols, animal studies or clinical studies involving humans (e.g., randomized clinical trials) were excluded. Review articles were not excluded in this initial search.

The endpoint of this timeframe (e.g., April 2020) was deliberately chosen as the COVID-19 pandemic has radically changed the organization of healthcare and the perceived workload in general practices during a short and disruptive period. Through this selection, we avoid making comparisons between pre-COVID-19 pandemic era results and findings from studies that were performed during the pandemic or post-pandemic. The restrictive measures and their disruptive influence on our specific subject of study would make reliable comparisons between findings from studies conducted during these different periods complicated. Nonetheless, we believe that the results of our study may offer valuable insights for the future adoption of eHealth services in general practice. This is particularly relevant regarding the impact of eHealth on healthcare professionals, now that governmental restrictive measures have largely ended in most countries and no longer significantly affect healthcare organizations. Further, 2010 was chosen as the starting point of our search, as technology has rapidly changed, making results from before 2010 potentially outdated. Accordingly, articles including COVID-related terms, i.e. ‘covid’ or ‘corona’, were excluded. The electronic databases were searched for original papers, within the specified timeframe, containing terms related to all of the following main terms: ‘eHealth’, ‘workload’, and ‘general practice’. Therefore, related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used as well as additional relevant non-MeSH terms, to select the full range of potentially appropriate original papers.

The search string and search strategy results are shown in Additional file 1, which were developed according to the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes (PICO) framework. With regard to the participants (P), we concentrated on studies describing staff working in general practice care or in a related setting (e.g., family medicine care or (community-based) primary healthcare). For convenience reasons, we will use the term ‘general practice’ in this paper, which for example also includes the term ‘family medicine’ which is more often used in North- and South American countries. Studies including participants from multiple care settings involving general practice staff were also included in our systematic review. With regard to the intervention (I), we included studies that described the implementation or use of one or more eHealth services within general practice care. The use of text messages, such as SMS, and telephone consultations were not considered eHealth in this study. Finally, the primary study outcome in our systematic review is ‘workload’. Secondary study outcome measures, related to workload, were also included and can be found in the search string included in Additional file 1.

Study selection process

The reference management software EndNote X9 was used to import articles identified through our search strategy and to manage references for performing deduplication, abstract and title screening, and full-article screening, following the procedure described by Bramer et al. (2017) [22]. As a first stage of the abstract and title selection process, the first 100 references were sorted on the first author’s name. These articles were independently assessed by two reviewers (JK and EV) to determine a good strategy for selecting the right studies for the full-article screening process. Consequently, the results of this assessment were discussed afterwards and led to tightening of the abstract and title selection criteria. Afterwards, one reviewer (JK) independently screened all references on title and abstract and the other reviewer (EV) independently screened 20% of all references. After comparing the results of this abstract and title screening process, the interrater reliability was 98% and the kappa was 0.84, which can be considered as ‘near perfect’ according to Landis et al. (1977), which justifies the approach that only one reviewer screened all references during title and abstract screening, while the second reviewer screened a 20% sample [23]. Furthermore, in case of doubt whether or not to include a specific article for the full-text selection process, this article was discussed between the two reviewers.

The full-text selection process was also independently performed by two reviewers (JK and CR). One reviewer (JK) again screened all articles that remained after the abstract and title selection process, while the other reviewer (CR) screened a 20% sample of these records. Identified review articles were searched for further eligible studies, using the snowball method, and were finally excluded as these did not contain original data. This resulted in an interrater reliability of 89% and a kappa value of 0.90, which can also be considered as ‘near perfect’. In both selection processes, other reviewers (RB, LvT, RV) were consulted when disagreement or indistinctness persisted.

Finally, through this process, references were included if they described at least one eHealth service, that was implemented and/or used within a general practice care setting, and investigated its impact on the workload within this setting. Reasons for exclusion were recorded in Endnote and are presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1).Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram

Data extraction

References that met all of the three aforementioned criteria were imported into a structured Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which contained the following primary study characteristics and additional extracted details of the included references: author, year of publication, study design, study objective, outcome measures, primary and secondary findings, type of eHealth service, study population characteristics, and country of study. The PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper by Shamseer et al. [24] was used to guide the process of data extraction [24]. Data extraction was performed independently by three reviewers (JK, EH and EdG). Each reviewer again selected a 20% sample of the extracted articles, which were reassessed by another reviewer and discussed to reduce errors in data extraction and to determine which data should be extracted. If disagreement or indistinctness persisted a fourth reviewer (LvT) was consulted.

Data analysis and quality assessment

A meta-analysis was not performed as the outcome measures and study designs varied widely among the included studies. Consequently, we conducted a descriptive analysis to assess the overall impact of eHealth use on workload in general practice, and to investigate the impact of specific eHealth services use on general practice workload. Therefore, extracted outcome measures and primary and secondary findings were assessed by the reviewers (JK, EH and EdG). If a study showed that the eHealth service increased general practice workload, a ‘ + ’ effect indicator was assigned to this study. A ‘- ‘ was given to studies reporting general practice workload reductions because of eHealth use. If studies reported that there was no impact of eHealth service use on workload, a ‘0’ was assigned. In case more than one effect was found in one study (e.g., a ‘ + ’ and ‘- ‘, or a ‘0’, ‘ + ’ and ‘- ‘), this study was assigned two or a maximum of three effect indicators. Further, no distinction was made based on the strength of the effect, as included studies had mainly slightly different study designs, settings and outcomes, which made comparisons of the effects between studies difficult.

In addition, quality assessment was independently performed by three reviewers (JK, EH and EdG) using the MMAT 2018, to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies [25]. For 20% of the included studies, a second reviewer also independently appraised the quality of these studies, with disagreements resolved through discussion until agreement was reached.

Results

Study Selection

The initial search identified 12,366 potentially relevant published articles, of which 431 articles were selected for the full-text screening (see Fig. 1). Finally, 208 articles remained after the full-text screening, describing 16 different categories of eHealth services within general practice settings (see Table 1). Details of the conducted searches can be found in Additional file 1. Table 1 Studies by type of eHealth service and their assigned effects on general practice workload

Type of eHealth service	Number of times studied*	Number of effects assigned	 + a
n (%)	-b
n (%)	0c
n (%)	
EHR	68	87	54 (62)	23 (26)	10 (11)	
Digital communication	40	58	27 (47)	17 (29)	14 (24)	
Digital decision support	19	25	13 (52)	9 (36)	3 (12)	
Telemonitoring	16	17	13 (76)	3 (18)	1 (6)	
Mobile health (mHealth)	13	19	13 (68)	5 (26)	1 (5)	
Electronic prescribing	13	18	8 (44)	10 (56)	0 (0)	
General health information technology	9	11	4 (36)	5 (45)	2 (18)	
Patient portal/patient online access	9	15	5 (33)	6 (4)	4 (27)	
Health information exchange (HIE)	6	10	5 (50)	5 (50)	0 (0)	
Algorithms or Artificial Intelligence (AI)	5	9	3 (33)	4 (44)	2 (22)	
Digital mental healthcare	5	6	3 (50)	1 (17)	2 (33)	
Digital patient questionnaire (screening) tool	4	6	1 (17)	2 (33)	3 (50)	
Online test ordering	3	4	2 (50)	2 (50)	0 (0)	
Teledermatology	3	4	2 (50)	2 (50)	0 (0)	
Self-management tools	2	2	2 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	
Other eHealth services	11	13	5 (38)	5 (38)	3 (23)	
Total	226d	304	162 (53)	99 (33)	44 (15)	
*The number of studied eHealth services is lower than the number of effects assigned, because some studies reported more than one effect of eHealth service use on general practice workload (see the data analysis section)

a Number of references reporting an increase in workload as a result of eHealth service use

b Number of references reporting a reduction in workload as a result of eHealth service use

c Number of references reporting no effect on workload as a result of eHealth service use

d Because some references studied more than one eHealth service type, this number is higher than the 208 included references

Specification of the eHealth service categories:

The EHR category includes EHRs, health management information systems, electronic medical records (EMRs), and EHR/EMR functionalities, tasks or alerts.

The digital communication category includes e-visits, (secure) emails, e-consultations, video consultations, video conferencing, webinars, electronic communication, online consultation systems, secure messaging, virtual communication, teleconsultations, e-appointments, e-referrals, and online request renewal of prescription medications.

The digital decision support category includes computerized (clinical) decision support/aid tools, clinical pathways applications, computer-supported telephone triage, digital screening and surveillance applications, and electronic optional guideline tools.

The telemonitoring category includes remote monitoring services and internet-mediated health and lifestyle programs.

The mHealth category includes mobile health applications, mobile health components, mobile devices, mobile health systems, and mobile client data applications.

The electronic prescribing category includes electronic prescribing tools or functionalities.

The general health information technology category includes home(-based) telehealth, clinical pathways websites, Health Information Technology (HIT), and web-based counseling tools.

The patient portal/patient online access category includes patient online (record) access, electronic patient portals, digital health information systems for citizens, and personal health records.

The Health Information Exchange (HIE) category includes HIE systems and functionalities.

The algorithms or Artificial Intelligence (AI) category includes digital tools using algorithms or artificial intelligence.

The digital mental healthcare category includes digital mental health screening and telemedicine-based mental care.

The digital patient questionnaire (screening) tool category includes electronic screening forms, computers for the collection of health behavior information, and other digital patient self-reported screening tools.

The online test ordering category includes electronic test ordering systems and online diagnostic testing.

The teledermatology category includes teledermatology and teledermatoscopy tools.

The self-management tools category includes electronic patient-reported outcome tools and online patient self-regulation and support programs.

	

Study characteristics

Of the 208 selected articles, 81 were categorized as qualitative studies, 56 as quantitative descriptive studies, 24 as non-randomized studies, three as randomized controlled trials, and 44 as mixed methods studies, using the grouping method of the MMAT procedure. The majority of the studies used interviews (n = 108) or surveys (n = 90) to collect data. Focus groups were used in 38 of the included studies, and observational methods were used in 27 of the included studies.

More than half of the included studies (n = 125) were performed in North America: 110 studies originated from the United States and 15 were performed in Canada. Fifty-three of the included studies were performed in Europe, which mainly originated from the United Kingdom (n = 33). Further, eight studies were performed in Australia, eight studies in African countries, six studies in Middle Eastern countries, five studies in other Asian countries, and three studies in South America.

The majority of the included studies were published in 2013 (n = 27), 2018 (n = 30) and 2019 (n = 24), while only 12 and 14 of the included studies were published in respectively 2011 and 2010.

Type of eHealth services

In total, the 208 included articles investigated 26 different types of eHealth services, which were categorized in 16 groups of eHealth services. Some studies covered eHealth services which could be categorized in more than one unique eHealth service category and some studies covered multiple eHealth services, outcomes or settings, resulting in a total of 304 effects of eHealth use on general practice workload that were assigned according to the method presented in the data analysis section. In total, in 63 of the included studies, more than one effect was found, while in 10 of these studies, a maximum of three effects were identified (i.e., ‘ + ’, ‘- ‘, and ‘0’).

With regard to the type of eHealth service being studied in the included studies, we identified that most of these investigated the impact of EHR use (n = 68) on the workload of general practice staff. Digital communication applications were investigated in 40 of the included studies. Furthermore, digital decision support services were described in 19 of the included studies, telemonitoring services in 16 studies, mHealth applications in 13 studies, and electronic prescribing applications also in 13 studies (see Table 1). A description of each eHealth category is also provided in Table 1.

Specification of the category ‘other eHealth services’ can be found in S Table 16 in Additional file 2. This category constitutes a group of eHealth services that were not described in any of the other included studies, and could consequently not be grouped in one eHealth service category. Table 1 also shows a breakdown of the (multiple) effects that were assigned to the studies’ main outcomes, i.e. the specific effects of the eHealth services use on general practice workload (based on the ‘ + ’/’- ‘/’0’ coding process described in the data analysis section). The division of the total number of 304 effects by type of eHealth service is similar to the division of the studies by type of eHealth service. Table 2 shows a similar breakdown of the studies analyzed and effects found, divided by type of study design. Table 2 Studies by MMAT categorization and their assigned effects on general practice workload

Study design according to MMAT categorization	Number of references*	Number of effects assigned	 + a
n (%)	-b
n (%)	0c
n (%)	
Qualitative	81	109	72 (66)	31 (28)	6 (6)	
Quantitative descriptive	56	73	35 (48)	27 (37)	11 (15)	
Mixed method	44	67	30 (45)	26 (39)	11 (16)	
Non-randomized	24	31	11 (35)	9 (29)	11 (35)	
Randomized controlled trials	3	4	1 (25)	1 (25)	2 (50)	
Total	208	284d	149 (52)	94 (33)	41 (14)	
*The number of references is lower than the number of effects assigned because some studies reported more than one effect of eHealth service use on general practice workload (see the data analysis section)

a Number of references reporting an increase in workload as a result of eHealth service use

b Number of references reporting a reduction in workload as a result of eHealth service use

c Number of references reporting no effect on workload as a result of eHealth service use

d Because this analysis was focused on the MMAT-categorization and not on the type of eHealth service, this number is lower than the 304 effects assigned in Table 1

Overall impact of eHealth services on practice workload

Tables 1 and 2 show that the impact of eHealth use or implementation on general practice workload differs between the type of eHealth service and type of study. Overall, a small majority of the studies found that eHealth use was associated with an increase in workload or a similar impact (e.g., lowered productivity or efficiency, more time-consuming). Based on the total number of effects assigned to the included studies, Table 1 shows that a slight majority (53%) indicates an increase in general practice workload as a result of eHealth use. In 33%, a reduction in workload, or a related outcome, was identified, and in the remaining 15%, there was no impact identified. These proportions are similar to the results in Table 2, based on a slightly lower number of assigned effects.

For the following eHealth service types it was found that a majority of the assigned effects showed an increase in general practice workload as a result of its use: EHR, digital decision support, telemonitoring, mHealth, and self-management tools. Only one eHealth service was identified for which a majority of the assigned effects showed a decrease in general practice workload because of its use: electronic prescribing. For the remaining eHealth service types, an ambiguous result was found. Furthermore, for almost all of the eHealth services, except for digital mental healthcare and digital patient questionnaire (screening) tools, the minority of the assigned effects indicated that eHealth use had no impact on general practice workload.

With regard to the MMAT study design categorization, we found for the qualitative studies that the majority of the assigned effects (66%) showed an increased general practice workload as a result of eHealth use, while in 28% a workload reduction effect was assigned, and in only 6% no impact was found (see Table 2). With regard to the other MMAT study designs, an ambiguous result was found. For the non-randomized studies, for example, 35% of the effects were assigned as having no impact, 35% as increasing general practice workload, and 29% as reducing general practice workload. With regard to the quantitative descriptive studies and mixed methods studies, the majority of assigned effects consisted of ‘ + ’ or ‘- ‘ indicators, while only a minority of the assigned effects was ‘0’. MMAT quality assessment scores for each study are presented in S Tables 1–16 in Additional file 2, so that the impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload can be considered in relation to the methodological quality of the studies. In general, the methodological quality of the included studies was rather good, especially for the qualitative studies. For mixed methods studies, in particular, methodological quality varied.

EHealth services that more often led to an increased general practice workload

As mentioned before, EHR was one of the five eHealth service categories for which we found that the majority of the assigned effects (62%) reported an increase in general practice workload [18, 26–78]. Many of the studies focusing on this eHealth service reported that its use required extra time or work for physicians, leading to additional administration and registration or duplication of work [26, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 45, 46, 48, 56, 59–72]. For example, Silva et al. [34] showed that EHR (functionality) implementation was associated with duplicate typing, rework and work overload [34]. About a quarter of the assigned effects (26%) of these studies indicated a reduction in workload or a related impact [16, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45, 62–64, 66, 70, 72, 75, 79–87]. Several of these studies reported time savings for all, or specific general practice care staff. To illustrate this, a study by Kochendorfer et al. [16] showed that after five months of EHR use, residents and attending physicians reported daily time savings of 44 min [16]. Finally, only 11% of the assigned effects showed that some of these studies reported no impact on general practice workload, time, productivity, workflow, efficiency or the total number of contacts [28, 42, 60, 70, 80, 82, 88–91]. Furthermore, to illustrate, we assigned seventeen of the studies about EHR use and its impact on general practice workload with two or three effects [28, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45, 60, 62–64, 66, 70, 72, 75, 80, 82]. One of these studies by Greiver et al. [63], for example, found that the implementation of an EHR led to an enormous increase in the amount of physicians’ time for data entry. On the other hand, some aspects of the EHR (i.e., prescription refills and consultation letters) made physicians more efficient after an initial decrease in efficiency. Physicians also thought that their administrative personnel were more efficient [63].

For digital decision support applications, slightly more than half of the assigned effects (52%) showed that its use increased general practice workload or had a related impact [92–104]. For example, Curry et al. (2011) reported that the time to use an electronic decision support tool was perceived as too long by physicians. Initially, 40% of the physicians reported that the decision support tool was disruptive in their workflow, which dropped to 16% when physicians gained more experience [94]. About one-third of the assigned effects (36%) reported a reduction in general practice workload or a related impact [93, 96, 98, 104–109]. To illustrate this, Barrett et al. [105] found that PCPs in their study felt that its use decreased time spent making clinical decisions, compared with the clinical tools they were used to utilize. Further, a minority of the assigned effects (12%) reported no impact on general practice workload as a result of digital decision support use [104, 109, 110].

With regard to telemonitoring services, a notable finding is that 76% of the effects indicated an increase in general practice workload [111–123]. For example, Webb et al. [123] found that managing a telemonitoring app led to significant additional work for support staff. The use of this app also added additional time to a consultation, and GPs felt rushed to address all related issues [123]. Only about one-fifth of the effects (18%) were assigned as reducing general practice workload [113, 120, 124, 125]. For example, a study by Davidson et al. (2019) found that the use of remote glucose monitoring saved time for both physicians and patients [125]. Finally, there was only one study by Kahalnik et al. [126] reporting no impact on general practice workload, indicating that providers reported a seamless integration of telemonitoring into the clinic’s existing workflows [126].

Furthermore, for mHealth services, the majority of the effects (68%) were assigned as increasing general practice workload [102, 113, 115, 118, 127–135]. For example, Diez-Canseco et al. [127] showed that time constraints and workload were reported as the main barriers to mHealth implementation, which involved doing more work within the same time [127]. On the other hand, a quarter of the effects (26%) was assigned as reducing general practice workload [113, 128, 131, 133, 135]. To illustrate, Mares et al. [131] showed in their study that some physicians reported that its use made less work for them [131]. Further, only one study by Schooley et al. [135] also reported that the vast majority of the providers in their study believed that it produced no negative impact on workload, indicating that no impact on workload was found [135].

Finally, the two included studies investigating self-management tools both found that these tools increased workload in general practice care [129, 136]. One of the two studies, performed by Poppe et al. (2018), reported that GPs identified the difficulty in integrating additional tasks into their daily workflow due to an overload of medical and administrative tasks as a result of the self-management tool. Furthermore, this study also reported that GPs mentioned that this tool sometimes required an additional consultation to motivate patients [136].

EHealth services that more often led to a reduction in general practice workload

As mentioned before, electronic prescribing was the only eHealth service for which we found that a majority of the assigned effects (56%) reported a reduction in general practice workload or a related impact [59, 137–145]. To illustrate, Bulut et al. [139] found that a large share of family physicians indicated that the use of electronic prescriptions was speeding up the prescription process and saved time, as these prescriptions could be generated faster than manual prescriptions [139]. However, all of the other effects (44%) were assigned as reporting an increase in general practice workload [59, 137, 140, 142–144, 146–148]. For example, Devine et al. (2010) identified that electronic prescribing took longer than handwriting, according to PCPs [140]. For none of the studies, we found that the use of electronic prescribing had no impact on general practice workload.

EHealth services with an ambiguous impact on general practice workload

For the remaining eHealth service categories, we did not find that a majority of the assigned effects indicated that its use increased or reduced general practice workload, or that its use had no impact on workload: digital communication, general health information technology, patient portal/patient online access, health information exchange (HIE), algorithms / AI, digital mental healthcare, digital patient questionnaire (screening) tools, online test ordering, and teledermatology.

With regard to digital communication services, the largest share of assigned effects (47%) showed an increase in workload or a related impact [30, 70, 149–173]. For example, Atherton et al. [149] showed that an increased workload was reported due to digital communication services use. Especially, video consultations were found to be time consuming to adopt [149]. On the other hand, several other studies found a reduction in general practice workload or a related impact because of digital communication use [47, 70, 151, 153, 156, 158, 161, 166, 168, 169, 174–180]. To illustrate this, Fagerlund et al. (2019) reported reduced phone load, increased efficiency, released time for medical assessments, and a reduction in the number of visits and phone contacts as a result of digital communication use in general practice [178]. Slightly fewer studies did not find an impact on general practice workload [70, 151, 154, 155, 160, 162, 166, 168, 175, 181–185]. For example, Edwards et al. (2017) reported in their study that any impact of e-consultations on general practice staff workload was likely to be negligible [182].

With regard to general health information technology services, the largest share of assigned effects (45%) showed a reduction in general practice workload [17, 70, 186–188]. For example, De Wilt et al. [188] found that almost all GPs in their study experienced that the eHealth services they used made their job more efficient and run more smoothly [188]. A slightly smaller proportion of the assigned effects indicated an increase in workload due to the use of general health information technology [51, 70, 189, 190]. One of these studies by Davidson et al. [189] reported that the integration of telehealth care data into the EHR of family practitioners led to concerns about the potential increased workload, particularly with regard to errors due to data overload [189]. Further, we identified two studies that reported no impact on workload [70, 191].

For patient portal/patient online access use, the largest share of assigned effects (40%) showed a workload reduction [172, 192–196], while 33% of these effects showed a workload increase [192, 194, 196–198]. About a quarter of the effects (27%) indicated that its use had no impact on workload [56, 192, 195, 196]. To illustrate, a study by Sorondo et al. [196] reported variable effects on practice workflow after the implementation of a patient portal: a reduction of time spent by medical assistants during office visits; no significant changes in the time spent by providers during the office visit; and an increase of time spent by physicians, care coordinators, and the office staff before the office visit were reported [196].

The included studies about HIE use reported either workload increases [199–203] or workload reductions [199–202, 204]. Mac McCullough (2014), for example, reported in their study that instances were found in which the used HIE system improved workflow within the studied primary care setting. However, instances were also found in which it appeared to hinder their workflow [200]. Most notably, none of the included studies found that HIE services had no impact on general practice workload.

Studies investigating eHealth services using algorithms or AI most often (44%) indicated that these lowered general practice workload [125, 205–207]. On the other hand, one-third of the assigned effects (33%) showed that this eHealth service increased general practice workload [205, 206, 208]. To illustrate, Mason et al. [208] found that GPs were concerned about the workload implications of assessment and care planning as a consequence of using a computer application (AnticiPal) with a search algorithm [208]. Furthermore, only two studies reported no impact on general practice workload as a result of its use [206, 207].

Studies investigating the association between digital mental healthcare applications and general practice workload more often (50% of the assigned effects) indicated that its use led to an increase in workload [127, 209, 210]. For example, Krog et al. [209] found that some of the GPs felt that the use of the digital mental healthcare tool was time-consuming [209]. One-third of the assigned effects (33%) reported no impact on workload [211, 212], while only one study showed that it was also associated with a reduction in general practice workload [210]. Montero-Marin et al. (2018), for example, found that there were no significant improvements in burnout among GPs as a result of using a blended web-based mindfulness program for GPs [212].

For digital patient questionnaire (screening) tools, we found that half of the assigned effects (50%) showed no impact on general practice workload because of their use [196, 213, 214]. For example, Paul et al. [214] reported that a majority of the GPs indicated that the implementation of a digital patient survey was not disruptive for their practice [214]. Further, one-third of the effects (33%) showed a workload reduction [196, 215], while only one study reported an increase in workload due to the use of a digital patient questionnaire tool [196].

With regard to the use of online test ordering, half of the effects (50%) indicated that its use led to a workload increase in general practice [216, 217]. The other half of the assigned effects (50%), however, showed a reduction in general practice workload [188, 217]. Whiting et al. [217], for example, found in their study that it was both associated with a workload increase and a workload reduction, depending on the phase of implementation. Initially, workload was adversely affected within the primary healthcare system. Finally, however, it was concluded that a systematic approach that aligns the use of blood tests to valid clinical questions eventually produced significant workload reductions [217].

Finally, for teledermatology services, an identical result was found. Two studies reported workload reductions because of its use [218, 219]. A similar amount of studies found the opposite [219, 220]. One of these studies, by McFarland et al. [219] reported both of these contrary outcomes, showing that providers reported an increase in workload as a result of teledermatology implementation, while 62% of the PCPs also agreed that teledermatology may save time [219].

Other eHealth services had variable impacts on general practice workload

With regard to the eleven studies describing other eHealth services implementation and use in general practice care, the following eHealth services were investigated: smart devices, telemedical screening, a virtual quality improvement collaborative, an online education course, an electronic feedback system, technology-enabled academic detailing, social media, electronic standing orders, computer-based prototype consultation order templates, electronic medication refill system, and a computerized physician order entry tool [56, 221–230]. Impacts on general practice workload differed among these various other eHealth services and are shown in S Table 16 in Additional file 2.

Discussion

Principal findings

This is the first study to our knowledge to systematically investigate the impact of eHealth services use on workload in general practices in the pre-COVID-19 era. After assigning all 304 effects that were reported in the 208 included studies, we found that a small majority of evidence suggests that eHealth services in general lead to an increase in general practice workload. This is contrary to the main premises and expectation that eHealth will reduce workload in general practices. Still, this was indeed found in one-third of the cases. It should be noted, however, that a small part of the effects (15%) reported in the included studies indicated no impact of eHealth services use on this workload.

Looking at specific eHealth services, we see that the use of EHR, digital decision support, telemonitoring, mHealth, and self-management tools increase workload, while the use of electronic prescribing more often reduces workload in general practice care. For other specific eHealth service categories, including digital communication, general health information technology, patient portal/patient online access, HIE, digital mental healthcare, algorithms / AI, digital patient questionnaire (screening) tools, online test ordering, teledermatology, and other eHealth services, results are ambiguous.

It is not surprising that the relationship between the use of EHR and general practice workload has been investigated most often in comparison with other eHealth services, as this is one of the first digital innovations introduced into many general practices on a global level. With regard to its impact on general practice workload, a systematic literature review by Nguyen (2014) also found that a majority of the included studies in their review study reported an increased workload in healthcare settings due to its implementation compared to a smaller share of studies reporting a reduced workload in these settings. However, in this review, a larger share of included studies also reported increased administrative efficiency as a result of its implementation compared to studies reporting less administrative efficiency [231]. A more recent literature study by Budd [232] also reported that EHRs have become a significant contributor to physician burnout, generally due to factors such as poor usability, information overload, and EHR system alerts [232]. With regard to mHealth, this result is not in line with the findings of a systematic review by Gagnon et al. (2016), who reported that more studies indicated that mHealth saved healthcare professionals time when compared to studies reporting that mHealth may be time consuming and disruptive to the physicians’ workflow [233]. However, our results align with those from a scoping review by Addotey-Delove et al. [234], which reported increased workload among healthcare workers in the developing world due to mHealth implementation [234].

With regard to the use of patient online access services, our results are in line with the findings of the systematic review performed by De Lusignan et al. (2014), who also found a similar number of studies that reported either an increase or a reduction in general practice workload as a result of patient online access adoption [235]. However, a more recent systematic review by Tapuria et al. [236] investigating the impact of patient access to their EHR found several studies reporting increased consultation times after patients accessed their patient portal [236].

Further, Gagnon et al. [237] found variable results with regard to the implementation of electronic prescriptions, which differs slightly from what we found. They reported that its use was time consuming during the pre-implementation and transition phases, while time gains were found in post-implementation phase [237].

The main results of our review do, however, generally not match the promise of eHealth, indicating that it increases efficiency, and consequently reduces workload in general practices [1]. Our systematic overview makes it easier to determine which eHealth services more often lead to increased workload in general practice care, and in which situation or context. It may consequently support general practices or policymakers when making choices to solve health workforce challenges, including increasing workloads.

The results of this systematic review provide evidence that the use of eHealth in general practice care does not naturally lead to workload reductions and improved efficiencies within this healthcare sector. The variance in results suggests that factors other than the type of eHealth service also might contribute to its impact on general practice workload, including the setting, the characteristics (including digital skills and acceptance) of the healthcare professionals or patients, the usability, the design of the eHealth service, and the phase of implementation, which often differed between the included studies (see S Tables 1–16 in Additional file 2). Sittig et al. (2010) and Karsh et al. [238] highlighted the importance of considering these and other relevant socio-technical factors several years ago, when healthcare organizations were gradually implementing more eHealth, which generally impacted healthcare professionals’ workflow processes and workload [238, 239]. Furthermore, Ross et al. [240] categorized factors influencing the implementation of eHealth into the following categrories: the individual eHealth technology characteristics, the outer setting, the inner setting, characteristics of the individual health professionals, and the process of implementation [240]. More recently, Darley et al. [241] emphasized the importance of appropriate system design when implementing eHealth services (i.e., online consultations) in primary care. They found that primary care staff workload increased when online consultations were not integrated with existing software or workflows, while workloads decreased when sufficient resources were allocated [241]. Moreover, Smart et al. (2023) identified other relevant factors influencing variations in primary care staff workload due to online consultation implementation, including job role, practice context, and the form and rationale for implementation [242]. These socio-technical factors that may impact general practice workload or related outcomes (e.g., burnout, productivity, or consultation volume) as a result of eHealth service implementation were also described in several other studies, indicating the importance of considering these aspects when adopting new technologies [243–245]. With regard to our results, for example, it seems that more often an increase in general practice workload was identified in earlier stages of eHealth implementation or use, which is in line with the diffusion of innovation theory by Rogers et al. (2003) [246]. However, as not all of the included studies in our systematic review provided sufficient information about the phase or process of eHealth service implementation, we were not able to investigate this thoroughly. When eHealth adoption in general practice is encouraged by governmental bodies or implemented by general practices, it is important to consider these potential contributing factors and evaluate their impact on general practice organizations in order to prevent or reduce negative consequences, such as increased workloads [239].

Strengths and Limitations and Future Research

Strengths of this study include its systematic and comparative approach, based on broad search terms and therefore a broad scope of eHealth applications. Likewise, we searched for different workload impacts in a large number of scientific databases, which resulted in a comprehensive overview of studies and an extensive coding of the effects they reported on the impact of eHealth on general practice workload. This comprehensive systematic approach could also be applied to other (sub)categorizations or frameworks of eHealth services, such as the OECD framework for telemedicine services, to investigate the impact of telemedicine services use on general practice workload [10]. Consequently, we also performed a short in-depth analysis, using the OECD framework for telemedicine services (consisting of three categories: store and forward telemedicine, interactive telemedicine, and telemonitoring), and identified 66 studies describing telemedicine services which investigated the impact of this service on workload in general practice. No clear association was found for store and forward telemedicine services and interactive telemedicine services either, as both workload increases and reductions were found as a result of telemedicine use or implementation. For telemonitoring services, however, it seems that the use of these services is more often associated with higher workloads among physicians, and is more often time-consuming compared to non-use.

However, some limitations of this review are also worth noting. First, a large share of the included studies were qualitative studies, mostly measuring subjective outcome measures, such as perceived workload. Only a few studies consisted of randomized controlled trials, which is generally seen as the gold standard for a study method in scientific research. Performing a good comparison between the various studies was accordingly difficult. Future work should consequently focus more on executing randomized controlled trials to investigate more accurately what the actual impact of eHealth service use or implementation is on workload in general practice. Importantly, looking at the different methodological designs, the workload increasing trend of specific eHealth services is consistent across studies, suggesting some robustness of our main findings.

Second, because of the heterogeneity of the study designs and study settings, it is difficult to compare the results of the included studies. Some studies had a large number of relevant study participants, while other studies had only a few participants or were unclear about the number of general practice staff. Consequently, it was not possible to weigh the results of the included studies according to the number of study participants. Furthermore, some studies were performed at the beginning of our study period (i.e., 2010), while others were executed just before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the time frames sometimes differed considerably between the included studies, meaning that outcome measures might be dependent upon the moment when the use of a specific eHealth service was investigated. And finally, some eHealth services were already common practice at the beginning of our study period, while the use of other technologies was relatively new and controversial in general practice. Consequently, comparisons of the results between the examined eHealth services might be difficult and this may have led to publication bias, which might explain why certain eHealth services were studied more than others within the context of our study objective. This large heterogeneity prevented us from pooling studies and performing a meta-analysis. Another form of publication bias could be that studies that find no, or unexpected, effects are less likely to be published than studies that investigated significant effects in the expected direction, which could explain the result of our study that the smallest share of the effects of eHealth use in general practice was assigned as having no impact on workload [247]. Future research should consequently focus on homogenous subsets of studies in terms of eHealth services, study designs and study settings when performing new studies that focus on the relationship between eHealth use and general practice workload. In addition, it is recommended that future research should also focus on more in-depth and longitudinal research, taking into account the phase of implementation and the maturity of the eHealth service at the moment of performing the study.

Third, although most of the included studies clearly described the eHealth service that was investigated, it was sometimes difficult to categorize the studied eHealth services, as there is no unambiguous definition of eHealth [248]. For example, various terms are used for EHR, such as electronic medical record (EMR) or health management information system. In addition, sometimes different terms were used for similar eHealth services, including the terms telehealth and telemedicine. Future work should therefore also focus on defining global, unambiguous definitions for the various eHealth services that exist, making comparison between studies easier.

Fourth, we only included studies that were published in English, which might also explain why the majority of the included studies originated from Anglo-Saxon countries. Consequently, we might have missed important results from scientific papers performed in non-Anglo-Saxon countries, which were published in other languages. Future research could therefore focus on performing a similar study, including studies that were published in other major languages than English, for example in Spanish or Chinese language. Results could then be compared with our study results.

Fifth, our eHealth categorization showed that only little research has been performed on some of the eHealth service types in relation to their impact on general practice workload, such as self-management tools, teledermatology, and online test ordering (see Table 1). Future work should consequently also focus more on investigating the impact of these less explored services, while less additional research on eHealth services including EHR and digital communication services is needed, as the impact of these services on general practice workload has already been investigated more often.

Finally, in our study we focused on the period 2010 until the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, making these results less comparable to the period during the COVID-19 pandemic, which radically changed the organization of healthcare, including general practice care. As this pandemic has come to an end, we think that our study results can be of added value for current general practice care. However, future research could investigate what influence the pandemic has had on the use of eHealth on workload in general practices.

Conclusions

Our systematic review of 208 studies shows that a small majority of the 304 effects these studies reported, rather indicate an increase instead of a reduction in general practice workload because of eHealth implementation and use.

Various eHealth services were identified through our systematic review and for several of these services, we found that a larger share of the effects indicated workload increases. Specifically, this was observed for the use of telemonitoring, mHealth and EHR applications. However, for one other eHealth service (i.e., electronic prescribing), a small majority of the effects indicated a reduction in general practice workload. These findings are not consistent with the promise of eHealth to increase efficiency in healthcare organizations. However, the impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload was found to be ambiguous, making it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion, which underscores the need for further explanatory research.

Furthermore, various factors can influence the impact of eHealth use on workload and routine workflow processes in general practice, including the setting, the characteristics of the healthcare professionals or patients, usability, system design, and the phase of implementation. These factors should be considered when eHealth is encouraged by governmental bodies or adopted in general practice.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Search strings and search strategy results, April 21st, 2020. Description of data: Overview of the included search databases (S table 1), the number of resulting references, and the search strings for each of the included search databases.

Additional file 2. Overview of included studies with results about the impact of eHealth use on general practice workload. Description of data: Overview of the main characteristics and results of the included studies in the systematic review study, including MMAT quality assessment results (S tables 1-16).

Additional file 3. PRISMA-P 2015 checklist. Description of data: PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol (S tables 1).

Abbreviations

CPOE Computerized physician order entry

EHR Electronic Health Record (Electronic Medical Record (EMR) is also considered as EHR)

GP General practitioner

HIE Health information exchange

HIT Health information technology

MA Medical Assistant

MD Medical Doctor

MeSH Medical Subject Headings

NP Nurse Practitioner

OM Office Manager

PA Physician Assistant

PN Practice Nurse

PCP Primary care physician

RCT Randomized controlled trial

UAE United Arab Emirates

UK United Kingdom

US United States of America

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the biomedical information specialist Elise Krabbendam from the Erasmus MC Medical Library for setting up the search string and performing the literature search. Furthermore, the authors wish to thank Egbert Heins (EH) for his support in the data extraction and data analysis process.

Authors’ contributions

JK, LvT and RB drafted the topic of this systematic review. The literature search strategy and the eligibility criteria were developed by JK, LvT and RB, and information specialists of the Erasmus University performed the database searches. JK and EV screened the titles and abstracts of all identified records. JK and CR read and reviewed potentially relevant full-text articles. JK and EdG analyzed and interpreted the data of the included full-text articles. Quality assessment was performed by JK and EdG. JK drafted the initial manuscript. RB, LvT and RV supervised the editing of the manuscript and reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

There was no financial support from external funders and/or sponsors for this systematic review.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Eysenbach G What is e-health? J Med Internet Res 2001 3 2 e20 10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20 11720962
Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2): e20. 11720962
2. Oh H Rizo C Enkin M Jadad A What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions J Med Internet Res 2005 7 1 e1 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e1 15829471
Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, Jadad A. What Is eHealth (3): A Systematic Review of Published Definitions. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1): e1. 15829471
3. Boogerd EA Arts T Engelen LJ van de Belt TH “What is eHealth”: time for an update? JMIR Res Protoc 2015 4 1 e29 10.2196/resprot.4065 25768939
Boogerd EA, Arts T, Engelen LJ, van de Belt TH. “What Is eHealth”: Time for An Update? JMIR Res Protoc. 2015;4(1): e29. 25768939
4. da Fonseca MH Kovaleski F Picinin CT Pedroso B Rubbo P E-health practices and technologies: a systematic review from 2014 to 2019 Healthcare 2021 9 9 1192 10.3390/healthcare9091192 34574966
da Fonseca MH, Kovaleski F, Picinin CT, Pedroso B, Rubbo P. E-Health Practices and Technologies: A Systematic Review from 2014 to 2019. Healthcare. 2021;9(9):1192. 34574966
5. Shaw T McGregor D Brunner M Keep M Janssen A Barnet S What is eHealth (6)? Development of a conceptual model for eHealth: qualitative study with key informants J Med Internet Res 2017 19 10 e324 10.2196/jmir.8106 29066429
Shaw T, McGregor D, Brunner M, Keep M, Janssen A, Barnet S. What is eHealth (6)? Development of a Conceptual Model for eHealth: Qualitative Study with Key Informants. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(10): e324. 29066429
6. Pagliari C Sloan D Gregor P Sullivan F Detmer D Kahan JP What is eHealth (4): a scoping exercise to map the field J Med Internet Res 2005 7 1 e9 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e9 15829481
Pagliari C, Sloan D, Gregor P, Sullivan F, Detmer D, Kahan JP, et al. What Is eHealth (4): A Scoping Exercise to Map the Field. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1): e9. 15829481
7. Van De Belt TH Engelen LJ Berben SA Schoonhoven L Definition of health 2.0 and medicine 2.0: a systematic review J Med Internet Res 2010 12 2 e18 10.2196/jmir.1350 20542857
Van De Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Berben SA, Schoonhoven L. Definition of health 2.0 and medicine 2.0: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2): e18.20542857
8. Hughes B Joshi I Wareham J Health 2.0 and medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field J Med Internet Res 2008 10 3 e23 10.2196/jmir.1056 18682374
Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3): e23.18682374
9. Ortega Egea JM González MVR Menéndez MR eHealth usage patterns of European general practitioners: a five-year (2002–2007) comparative study Int J Med Inform 2010 79 8 539 553 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.05.003 20538514
Ortega Egea JM, González MVR, Menéndez MR. eHealth usage patterns of European general practitioners: a five-year (2002–2007) comparative study. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(8):539–53.20538514
10. OECD The COVID-19 pandemic and the future of telemedicine 2023
OECD. The COVID-19 pandemic and the future of telemedicine. 2023.
11. van Dijk CE Korevaar JC Koopmans B de Jong JD de Bakker DH The primary–secondary care interface: does provision of more services in primary care reduce referrals to medical specialists? Health Policy 2014 118 1 48 55 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.001 24816225
van Dijk CE, Korevaar JC, Koopmans B, de Jong JD, de Bakker DH. The primary–secondary care interface: does provision of more services in primary care reduce referrals to medical specialists? Health Policy. 2014;118(1):48–55.24816225
12. Maier CB Aiken LH Task shifting from physicians to nurses in primary care in 39 countries: a cross-country comparative study Eur J Pub Health 2016 26 6 927 934 10.1093/eurpub/ckw098 27485719
Maier CB, Aiken LH. Task shifting from physicians to nurses in primary care in 39 countries: a cross-country comparative study. Eur J Pub Health. 2016;26(6):927–34.27485719
13. WHO. Health workforce. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-workforce#tab=tab_1.
14. Erler A Bodenheimer T Baker R Goodwin N Spreeuwenberg C Vrijhoef HJ Preparing primary care for the future - perspectives from the Netherlands, England, and USA Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011 105 8 571 580 10.1016/j.zefq.2011.09.029 22142879
Erler A, Bodenheimer T, Baker R, Goodwin N, Spreeuwenberg C, Vrijhoef HJ, et al. Preparing primary care for the future - perspectives from the Netherlands, England, and USA. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105(8):571–80.22142879
15. Boniol M Kunjumen T Nair TS Siyam A Campbell J Diallo K The global health workforce stock and distribution in 2020 and 2030: a threat to equity and ‘universal’ health coverage? BMJ Glob Health 2022 7 6 e009316 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009316 35760437
Boniol M, Kunjumen T, Nair TS, Siyam A, Campbell J, Diallo K. The global health workforce stock and distribution in 2020 and 2030: a threat to equity and ‘universal’ health coverage? BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(6): e009316.35760437
16. Kochendorfer KM Morris LE Kruse RL Ge BG Mehr DR Attending and resident physician perceptions of an EMR-generated rounding report for adult inpatient services Fam Med 2010 42 5 343 349 20461566
Kochendorfer KM, Morris LE, Kruse RL, Ge BG, Mehr DR. Attending and resident physician perceptions of an EMR-generated rounding report for adult inpatient services. Fam Med. 2010;42(5):343–9.20461566
17. Ruiz Morilla MD Sans M Casasa A Giménez N Implementing technology in healthcare: insights from physicians BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017 17 1 92 10.1186/s12911-017-0489-2 28655299
Ruiz Morilla MD, Sans M, Casasa A, Giménez N. Implementing technology in healthcare: insights from physicians. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):92.28655299
18. Adler KG Edsall RL EHR switch survey: responses from 305 family physicians Fam Pract Manag 2015 22 1 13 18 25591227
Adler KG, Edsall RL. EHR switch survey: responses from 305 family physicians. Fam Pract Manag. 2015;22(1):13–8.25591227
19. Wanderås MR Abildsnes E Thygesen E Martinez SG Video consultation in general practice: a scoping review on use, experiences, and clinical decisions BMC Health Serv Res 2023 23 1 316 10.1186/s12913-023-09309-7 36997997
Wanderås MR, Abildsnes E, Thygesen E, Martinez SG. Video consultation in general practice: a scoping review on use, experiences, and clinical decisions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):316.36997997
20. Fletcher E Burns A Wiering B Lavu D Shephard E Hamilton W Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review BMC Primary Care 2023 24 1 23 10.1186/s12875-023-01973-2 36670354
Fletcher E, Burns A, Wiering B, Lavu D, Shephard E, Hamilton W, et al. Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review. BMC Primary Care. 2023;24(1):23.36670354
21. Moher D Shamseer L Clarke M Ghersi D Liberati A Petticrew M Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement Syst Rev 2015 4 1 1 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 25554246
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1): 1.25554246
22. Bramer WM Milic J Mast F Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote J Med Libr Assoc 2017 105 84 + 10.5195/jmla.2017.111 28096751
Bramer WM, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105:84 +.28096751
23. Landis JR Koch GG The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data Biometrics 1977 33 1 159 174 10.2307/2529310 843571
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.843571
24. Shamseer L Moher D Clarke M Ghersi D Liberati A Petticrew M Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation BMJ 2015 349 g7647 10.1136/bmj.g7647
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.
25. Hong P QP Fàbregues S Bartlett G Boardman F Cargo M Dagenais P Gagnon MP Griffiths F Nicolau B O’Cathain A Rousseau MC Vedel I Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552) 2018 Industry Canada Canadian Intellectual Property Office
Hong P QP, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Nicolau B, O’Cathain A, Rousseau MC, Vedel I. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552). Industry Canada: Canadian Intellectual Property Office; 2018.
26. Cajander Å Moll J Englund S Hansman A Medical records online for patients and effects on the work environment of nurses Stud Health Technol Inform 2018 247 271 275 29677965
Cajander Å, Moll J, Englund S, Hansman A. Medical records online for patients and effects on the work environment of nurses. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;247:271–5.29677965
27. Ghosh A McCarthy S Halcomb E Perceptions of primary care staff on a regional data quality intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative study BMC Fam Pract 2016 17 50 10.1186/s12875-016-0445-8 27112192
Ghosh A, McCarthy S, Halcomb E. Perceptions of primary care staff on a regional data quality intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17:50.27112192
28. Greenhalgh T Stramer K Bratan T Byrne E Russell J Potts HW Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study BMJ 2010 340 c3111 10.1136/bmj.c3111 20554687
Greenhalgh T, Stramer K, Bratan T, Byrne E, Russell J, Potts HW. Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study. BMJ. 2010;340: c3111.20554687
29. Hysong SJ Sawhney MK Wilson L Sittig DF Esquivel A Singh S Understanding the management of electronic test result notifications in the outpatient setting BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011 11 22 10.1186/1472-6947-11-22 21486478
Hysong SJ, Sawhney MK, Wilson L, Sittig DF, Esquivel A, Singh S, et al. Understanding the management of electronic test result notifications in the outpatient setting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11: 22.21486478
30. Iljaz R Meglic M Petek D Kolsek M Susic TP Adherence factors to paperless primary healthcare: a focus group study Zdravstveno Varstvo 2014 53 1 42 54
Iljaz R, Meglic M, Petek D, Kolsek M, Susic TP. Adherence factors to paperless primary healthcare: a focus group study. Zdravstveno Varstvo. 2014;53(1):42–54.
31. Murphy DR, Giardina TD, Satterly T, Sittig DF, Singh H. An exploration of barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improving electronic health record inbox-related usability: a qualitative analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912638.
32. Ramelson H Nederlof A Karmiy S Neri P Kiernan D Krishnamurthy R Closing the loop with an enhanced referral management system J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018 25 6 715 721 10.1093/jamia/ocy004 29471355
Ramelson H, Nederlof A, Karmiy S, Neri P, Kiernan D, Krishnamurthy R, et al. Closing the loop with an enhanced referral management system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(6):715–21.29471355
33. Shield RR Goldman RE Anthony DA Wang N Doyle RJ Borkan J Gradual electronic health record implementation: new insights on physician and patient adaptation Ann Fam Med 2010 8 4 316 326 10.1370/afm.1136 20644186
Shield RR, Goldman RE, Anthony DA, Wang N, Doyle RJ, Borkan J. Gradual electronic health record implementation: new insights on physician and patient adaptation. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(4):316–26.20644186
34. Silva TIM Cavalcante RB Santos RCD Gontijo TL Guimaraes EAA Oliveira VC Diffusion of the e-SUS primary care innovation in family health teams Rev Bras Enferm 2018 71 6 2945 2952 10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0053 30517397
Silva TIM, Cavalcante RB, Santos RCD, Gontijo TL, Guimaraes EAA, Oliveira VC. Diffusion of the e-SUS primary care innovation in family health teams. Rev Bras Enferm. 2018;71(6):2945–52.30517397
35. Zhang J Chen Y Ashfaq S Bell K Calvitti A Farber NJ Strategizing EHR use to achieve patient-centered care in exam rooms: a qualitative study on primary care providers J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 23 1 137 143 10.1093/jamia/ocv142 26568605
Zhang J, Chen Y, Ashfaq S, Bell K, Calvitti A, Farber NJ, et al. Strategizing EHR use to achieve patient-centered care in exam rooms: a qualitative study on primary care providers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):137–43.26568605
36. Zazove P McKee M Schleicher L Green L Kileny P Rapai M To act or not to act: responses to electronic health record prompts by family medicine clinicians J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017 24 2 275 280 10.1093/jamia/ocw178 28158766
Zazove P, McKee M, Schleicher L, Green L, Kileny P, Rapai M, et al. To act or not to act: responses to electronic health record prompts by family medicine clinicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(2):275–80.28158766
37. Kim J Young L Bekmuratova S Schober DJ Wang H Roy S Promoting colorectal cancer screening through a new model of delivering rural primary care in the USA: a qualitative study Rural Remote Health 2017 17 1 4187 10.22605/RRH4187 28355878
Kim J, Young L, Bekmuratova S, Schober DJ, Wang H, Roy S, et al. Promoting colorectal cancer screening through a new model of delivering rural primary care in the USA: a qualitative study. Rural Remote Health. 2017;17(1):4187.28355878
38. Gregory ME Russo E Singh H Electronic health record alert-related workload as a predictor of burnout in primary care providers Appl Clin Inform 2017 8 3 686 697 10.4338/ACI-2017-01-RA-0003 28678892
Gregory ME, Russo E, Singh H. Electronic health record alert-related workload as a predictor of burnout in primary care providers. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;8(3):686–97.28678892
39. Straus SG Chen AH Yee H Jr Kushel MB Bell DS Implementation of an electronic referral system for outpatient specialty care AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011 2011 1337 1346 22195195
Straus SG, Chen AH, Yee H Jr, Kushel MB, Bell DS. Implementation of an electronic referral system for outpatient specialty care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1337–46.22195195
40. Brown LS Jr Kritz S Lin M Zavala R Evaluation of an electronic medical record system at an opioid agonist treatment program J Addict Med 2014 8 2 96 101 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000018 24562402
Brown LS Jr, Kritz S, Lin M, Zavala R. Evaluation of an electronic medical record system at an opioid agonist treatment program. J Addict Med. 2014;8(2):96–101.24562402
41. Bhavsar GP Martin AB Bennett KJ Todd TJ Evaluating the health information technology regional extension center in South Carolina Health Policy Technol 2014 3 3 192 199 10.1016/j.hlpt.2014.04.002
Bhavsar GP, Martin AB, Bennett KJ, Todd TJ. Evaluating the health information technology regional extension center in South Carolina. Health Policy Technol. 2014;3(3):192–9.
42. Fleming NS Becker ER Culler SD Cheng D McCorkle R Da Graca B The impact of electronic health records on workflow and financial measures in primary care practices Health Serv Res 2014 49 1 PART 2 405 420 10.1111/1475-6773.12133 24359533
Fleming NS, Becker ER, Culler SD, Cheng D, McCorkle R, Da Graca B, et al. The impact of electronic health records on workflow and financial measures in primary care practices. Health Serv Res. 2014;49(1 PART 2):405–20.24359533
43. Krousel-Wood M McCoy AB Ahia C Holt E Trapani DN Luo Q Implementing electronic health records (EHRs): health care provider perceptions before and after transition from a local basic EHR to a commercial comprehensive EHR J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018 25 6 618 626 10.1093/jamia/ocx094 29036503
Krousel-Wood M, McCoy AB, Ahia C, Holt E, Trapani DN, Luo Q, et al. Implementing electronic health records (EHRs): health care provider perceptions before and after transition from a local basic EHR to a commercial comprehensive EHR. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(6):618–26.29036503
44. Lesko S Hughes L Fitch W Pauwels J Ten-year trends in family medicine residency productivity and staffing: impact of electronic health records, resident duty hours, and the medical home Fam Med 2012 44 2 83 89 22328473
Lesko S, Hughes L, Fitch W, Pauwels J. Ten-year trends in family medicine residency productivity and staffing: impact of electronic health records, resident duty hours, and the medical home. Fam Med. 2012;44(2):83–9.22328473
45. Rahal RM Mercer J Kuziemsky C Yaya S Primary care physicians' experience using advanced electronic medical record features to support chronic disease prevention and management: qualitative study JMIR Med Inform 2019 7 4 e13318 10.2196/13318 31782742
Rahal RM, Mercer J, Kuziemsky C, Yaya S. Primary care physicians’ experience using advanced electronic medical record features to support chronic disease prevention and management: qualitative study. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7(4): e13318.31782742
46. Yan H Gardner R Baier R Beyond the focus group: understanding physicians' barriers to electronic medical records Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 38 4 184 191 22533131
Yan H, Gardner R, Baier R. Beyond the focus group: understanding physicians’ barriers to electronic medical records. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38(4):184–91.22533131
47. Kroth PJ Morioka-Douglas N Veres S Pollock K Babbott S Poplau S The electronic elephant in the room: physicians and the electronic health record JAMIA Open 2018 1 1 49 56 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooy016 31093606
Kroth PJ, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S, Pollock K, Babbott S, Poplau S, et al. The electronic elephant in the room: physicians and the electronic health record. JAMIA Open. 2018;1(1):49–56.31093606
48. Kruse GR Hays H Orav EJ Palan M Sequist TD Meaningful use of the Indian health service electronic health record Health Serv Res 2017 52 4 1349 1363 10.1111/1475-6773.12531 27461978
Kruse GR, Hays H, Orav EJ, Palan M, Sequist TD. Meaningful use of the Indian health service electronic health record. Health Serv Res. 2017;52(4):1349–63.27461978
49. Adler-Milstein J Zhao W Willard-Grace R Knox M Grumbach K Electronic health records and burnout: time spent on the electronic health record after hours and message volume associated with exhaustion but not with cynicism among primary care clinicians J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020 27 4 531 538 10.1093/jamia/ocz220 32016375
Adler-Milstein J, Zhao W, Willard-Grace R, Knox M, Grumbach K. Electronic health records and burnout: time spent on the electronic health record after hours and message volume associated with exhaustion but not with cynicism among primary care clinicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(4):531–8.32016375
50. Agana DF Porter M Hatch R Rubin D Carek P Job satisfaction among academic family physicians Fam Med 2017 49 8 622 625 28953294
Agana DF, Porter M, Hatch R, Rubin D, Carek P. Job satisfaction among academic family physicians. Fam Med. 2017;49(8):622–5.28953294
51. Gardner RL Cooper E Haskell J Harris DA Poplau S Kroth PJ Physician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019 26 2 106 114 10.1093/jamia/ocy145 30517663
Gardner RL, Cooper E, Haskell J, Harris DA, Poplau S, Kroth PJ, et al. Physician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(2):106–14.30517663
52. Hauer A Waukau HJ Welch P Physician burnout in Wisconsin: an alarming trend affecting physician wellness Wisc Med J 2018 117 5 194 200
Hauer A, Waukau HJ, Welch P. Physician burnout in Wisconsin: an alarming trend affecting physician wellness. Wisc Med J. 2018;117(5):194–200.
53. Kersting C Zimmer L Thielmann A Weltermann B Chronic stress, work-related daily challenges and medicolegal investigations: a cross-sectional study among German general practitioners BMC Fam Pract 2019 20 1 1 8 10.1186/s12875-019-1032-6 30606122
Kersting C, Zimmer L, Thielmann A, Weltermann B. Chronic stress, work-related daily challenges and medicolegal investigations: a cross-sectional study among German general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):1–8.30606122
54. Kroth PJ Morioka-Douglas N Veres S Babbott S Poplau S Qeadan F Association of electronic health record design and use factors with clinician stress and burnout JAMA Netw Open 2019 2 8 e199609 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9609 31418810
Kroth PJ, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S, Babbott S, Poplau S, Qeadan F, et al. Association of electronic health record design and use factors with clinician stress and burnout. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e199609.31418810
55. Robertson SL Robinson MD Reid A Electronic health record effects on work-life balance and burnout within the i3 population collaborative J Grad Med Educ 2017 9 4 479 484 10.4300/JGME-D-16-00123.1 28824762
Robertson SL, Robinson MD, Reid A. Electronic health record effects on work-life balance and burnout within the i3 population collaborative. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(4):479–84.28824762
56. Shanafelt TD Dyrbye LN Sinsky C Hasan O Satele D Sloan J Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction Mayo Clin Proc 2016 91 7 836 848 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.05.007 27313121
Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C, Hasan O, Satele D, Sloan J, et al. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(7):836–48.27313121
57. Tran B Lenhart A Ross R Dorr DA Burnout and EHR use among academic primary care physicians with varied clinical workloads AMIA Summits Transl Sci Proc 2019 2019 136 144 31258965
Tran B, Lenhart A, Ross R, Dorr DA. Burnout and EHR use among academic primary care physicians with varied clinical workloads. AMIA Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2019;2019:136–44.31258965
58. Murphy DR Reis B Sittig DF Singh H Notifications received by primary care practitioners in electronic health records: a taxonomy and time analysis Am J Med 2012 125 2 209.e1 .e7 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.07.029 22269625
Murphy DR, Reis B, Sittig DF, Singh H. Notifications received by primary care practitioners in electronic health records: a taxonomy and time analysis. Am J Med. 2012;125(2):209.e1-.e7.22269625
59. Al Alawi S Al Dhaheri A Al Baloushi D Al Dhaheri M Prinsloo EA Physician user satisfaction with an electronic medical records system in primary healthcare centres in Al Ain: a qualitative study BMJ Open 2014 4 11 e005569 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005569 25377010
Al Alawi S, Al Dhaheri A, Al Baloushi D, Al Dhaheri M, Prinsloo EA. Physician user satisfaction with an electronic medical records system in primary healthcare centres in Al Ain: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11): e005569.25377010
60. Bae J Encinosa WE National estimates of the impact of electronic health records on the workload of primary care physicians BMC Health Serv Res 2016 16 172 10.1186/s12913-016-1422-6 27160147
Bae J, Encinosa WE. National estimates of the impact of electronic health records on the workload of primary care physicians. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:172.27160147
61. Bouamrane MM Mair FS A study of general practitioners' perspectives on electronic medical records systems in NHSScotland BMC Med Inf Decis Mak 2013 13 58 10.1186/1472-6947-13-58
Bouamrane MM, Mair FS. A study of general practitioners’ perspectives on electronic medical records systems in NHSScotland. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2013;13:58.
62. Coorey G Peiris D Usherwood T Neubeck L Mulley J Redfern J Persuasive design features within a consumer-focused eHealth intervention integrated with the electronic health record: a mixed methods study of effectiveness and acceptability PLoS One 2019 14 6 e0218447 10.1371/journal.pone.0218447 31220127
Coorey G, Peiris D, Usherwood T, Neubeck L, Mulley J, Redfern J. Persuasive design features within a consumer-focused eHealth intervention integrated with the electronic health record: a mixed methods study of effectiveness and acceptability. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0218447.31220127
63. Greiver M Barnsley J Glazier RH Moineddin R Harvey BJ Implementation of electronic medical records: theory-informed qualitative study Can Fam Phys 2011 57 10 e390 e397
Greiver M, Barnsley J, Glazier RH, Moineddin R, Harvey BJ. Implementation of electronic medical records: theory-informed qualitative study. Can Fam Phys. 2011;57(10):e390–7.
64. Halas G Singer A Styles C Katz A New conceptual model of EMR implementation in interprofessional academic family medicine clinics Can Fam Phys 2015 61 5 e232 e239
Halas G, Singer A, Styles C, Katz A. New conceptual model of EMR implementation in interprofessional academic family medicine clinics. Can Fam Phys. 2015;61(5):e232–9.
65. Harle CA Listhaus A Covarrubias CM Schmidt SOF Mackey S Carek PJ Overcoming barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record: a case report J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 23 1 74 79 10.1093/jamia/ocv085 26159464
Harle CA, Listhaus A, Covarrubias CM, Schmidt SOF, Mackey S, Carek PJ, et al. Overcoming barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record: a case report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):74–9.26159464
66. Howard J Clark EC Friedman A Crosson JC Pellerano M Crabtree BF Electronic health record impact on work burden in small, unaffiliated, community-based primary care practices J Gen Intern Med 2013 28 1 107 113 10.1007/s11606-012-2192-4 22926633
Howard J, Clark EC, Friedman A, Crosson JC, Pellerano M, Crabtree BF, et al. Electronic health record impact on work burden in small, unaffiliated, community-based primary care practices. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(1):107–13.22926633
67. Pare G Raymond L de Guinea AO Poba-Nzaou P Trudel MC Marsan J Barriers to organizational adoption of EMR systems in family physician practices: a mixed-methods study in Canada Int J Med Inf 2014 83 8 548 558 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.06.003
Pare G, Raymond L, de Guinea AO, Poba-Nzaou P, Trudel MC, Marsan J, et al. Barriers to organizational adoption of EMR systems in family physician practices: a mixed-methods study in Canada. Int J Med Inf. 2014;83(8):548–58.
68. Prazeres F How do GPs versus GP trainees adapt to electronic health records? A Portuguese pilot study Inform Prim Care 2014 21 3 139 141 25207617
Prazeres F. How do GPs versus GP trainees adapt to electronic health records? A Portuguese pilot study. Inform Prim Care. 2014;21(3):139–41.25207617
69. Rosemann T Marty F Bhend H Wagner J Brunner L Zoller M Utilisation of information technologies in ambulatory care in Switzerland Swiss Med Wkly 2010 140 w13088 20853193
Rosemann T, Marty F, Bhend H, Wagner J, Brunner L, Zoller M. Utilisation of information technologies in ambulatory care in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2010;140: w13088.20853193
70. Sarma S Hajizadeh M Thind A Chan R The association between health information technology adoption and family physicians' practice patterns in Canada: evidence from 2007 and 2010 national physician surveys Healtc Policy 2013 9 1 89
Sarma S, Hajizadeh M, Thind A, Chan R. The association between health information technology adoption and family physicians’ practice patterns in Canada: evidence from 2007 and 2010 national physician surveys. Healtc Policy. 2013;9(1):89.
71. Tierney WM Sidle JE Diero LO Sudoi A Kiplagat J Macharia S Assessing the impact of a primary care electronic medical record system in three Kenyan rural health centers J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 23 3 544 552 10.1093/jamia/ocv074 26260246
Tierney WM, Sidle JE, Diero LO, Sudoi A, Kiplagat J, Macharia S, et al. Assessing the impact of a primary care electronic medical record system in three Kenyan rural health centers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(3):544–52.26260246
72. Embi PJ Weir C Efthimiadis EN Thielke SM Hedeen AN Hammond KW Computerized provider documentation: findings and implications of a multisite study of clinicians and administrators J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013 20 4 718 726 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000946 23355462
Embi PJ, Weir C, Efthimiadis EN, Thielke SM, Hedeen AN, Hammond KW. Computerized provider documentation: findings and implications of a multisite study of clinicians and administrators. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(4):718–26.23355462
73. Emani S Ting DY Healey M Lipsitz SR Ramelson H Suric V Physician perceptions and beliefs about generating and providing a clinical summary of the office visit Appl Clin Inform 2015 6 3 577 590 10.4338/ACI-2015-04-RA-0043 26448799
Emani S, Ting DY, Healey M, Lipsitz SR, Ramelson H, Suric V, et al. Physician perceptions and beliefs about generating and providing a clinical summary of the office visit. Appl Clin Inform. 2015;6(3):577–90.26448799
74. Goldberg DG Kuzel AJ Feng LB DeShazo JP Love LE EHRs in primary care practices: benefits, challenges, and successful strategies Am J Manag Care 2012 18 2 e48 e54 22435884
Goldberg DG, Kuzel AJ, Feng LB, DeShazo JP, Love LE. EHRs in primary care practices: benefits, challenges, and successful strategies. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18(2):e48–54.22435884
75. McAlearney AS Robbins J Hirsch A Jorina M Harrop JP Perceived efficiency impacts following electronic health record implementation: an exploratory study of an urban community health center network Int J Med Inform 2010 79 12 807 816 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.09.002 20961803
McAlearney AS, Robbins J, Hirsch A, Jorina M, Harrop JP. Perceived efficiency impacts following electronic health record implementation: an exploratory study of an urban community health center network. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(12):807–16.20961803
76. Or C Tong E Tan J Chan S Exploring factors affecting voluntary adoption of electronic medical records among physicians and clinical assistants of small or solo private general practice clinics J Med Syst 2018 42 7 121 10.1007/s10916-018-0971-0 29845400
Or C, Tong E, Tan J, Chan S. Exploring factors affecting voluntary adoption of electronic medical records among physicians and clinical assistants of small or solo private general practice clinics. J Med Syst. 2018;42(7):121.29845400
77. Ariza F Kalra D Potts HW How do clinical information systems affect the cognitive demands of general practitioners?: Usability study with a focus on cognitive workload J Innov Health Inform 2015 22 4 379 390 10.14236/jhi.v22i4.85 26855272
Ariza F, Kalra D, Potts HW. How do clinical information systems affect the cognitive demands of general practitioners?: Usability study with a focus on cognitive workload. J Innov Health Inform. 2015;22(4):379–90.26855272
78. Babbott S Manwell LB Brown R Montague E Williams E Schwartz M Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO study J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014 21 E2 e100 e106 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001875 24005796
Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, Montague E, Williams E, Schwartz M, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(E2):e100–6.24005796
79. Asan O Chiou E Montague E Quantitative ethnographic study of physician workflow and interactions with electronic health record systems Int J Ind Ergon 2015 49 124 130 10.1016/j.ergon.2014.04.004 26279597
Asan O, Chiou E, Montague E. Quantitative ethnographic study of physician workflow and interactions with electronic health record systems. Int J Ind Ergon. 2015;49:124–30.26279597
80. Saleem JJ Haggstrom DA Militello LG Flanagan M Kiess CL Arbuckle N Redesign of a computerized clinical reminder for colorectal cancer screening: a human-computer interaction evaluation BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011 11 74 10.1186/1472-6947-11-74 22126324
Saleem JJ, Haggstrom DA, Militello LG, Flanagan M, Kiess CL, Arbuckle N, et al. Redesign of a computerized clinical reminder for colorectal cancer screening: a human-computer interaction evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11: 74.22126324
81. Ballout G Al-Shorbaji N Abu-Kishk N Turki Y Zeidan W Seita A UNRWA's innovative e-Health for 5 million Palestine refugees in the Near East BMJ Innov 2018 4 3 128 134 10.1136/bmjinnov-2017-000262
Ballout G, Al-Shorbaji N, Abu-Kishk N, Turki Y, Zeidan W, Seita A. UNRWA’s innovative e-Health for 5 million Palestine refugees in the Near East. BMJ Innov. 2018;4(3):128–34.
82. Coylewright M, Keevil JG, Xu K, Dodge SE, Frosch D, Field ME. Pragmatic study of clinician use of a personalized patient decision aid integrated into the electronic health record: an 8-year experience. Telemed J E Health. 2019;26(5):597–602.
83. Koopman RJ Kochendorfer KM Moore JL Mehr DR Wakefield DS Yadamsuren B A diabetes dashboard and physician efficiency and accuracy in accessing data needed for high-quality diabetes care Ann Fam Med 2011 9 5 398 405 10.1370/afm.1286 21911758
Koopman RJ, Kochendorfer KM, Moore JL, Mehr DR, Wakefield DS, Yadamsuren B, et al. A diabetes dashboard and physician efficiency and accuracy in accessing data needed for high-quality diabetes care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(5):398–405.21911758
84. Krishnan A Nongkynrih B Yadav K Singh S Gupta V Evaluation of computerized health management information system for primary health care in rural India BMC Health Serv Res 2010 10 310 10.1186/1472-6963-10-310 21078203
Krishnan A, Nongkynrih B, Yadav K, Singh S, Gupta V. Evaluation of computerized health management information system for primary health care in rural India. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10: 310.21078203
85. Adler-Milstein J Huckman RS The impact of electronic health record use on physician productivity Am J Manag Care 2013 19 10 SP345 SP52 24511889
Adler-Milstein J, Huckman RS. The impact of electronic health record use on physician productivity. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(10):SP345–52.24511889
86. Green LV, Savin S, Lu Y. Primary care physician shortages could be eliminated through use of teams, nonphysicians, and electronic communication. Health Affairs. 2013;32(1):11–9.
87. O'Malley AS Draper K Gourevitch R Cross DA Scholle SH Electronic health records and support for primary care teamwork J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015 22 2 426 434 10.1093/jamia/ocu029 25627278
O’Malley AS, Draper K, Gourevitch R, Cross DA, Scholle SH. Electronic health records and support for primary care teamwork. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(2):426–34.25627278
88. Bhargava HK Mishra AN Electronic medical records and physician productivity: evidence from panel data analysis Manage Sci 2014 60 10 2543 2562 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1934
Bhargava HK, Mishra AN. Electronic medical records and physician productivity: evidence from panel data analysis. Manage Sci. 2014;60(10):2543–62.
89. Donohue S Sesto ME Hahn DL Buhr KA Jacobs EA Sosman JM Evaluating primary care providers' views on survivorship care plans generated by an electronic health record system J Oncol Pract 2015 11 3 e329 e335 10.1200/JOP.2014.003335 25804989
Donohue S, Sesto ME, Hahn DL, Buhr KA, Jacobs EA, Sosman JM, et al. Evaluating primary care providers’ views on survivorship care plans generated by an electronic health record system. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(3):e329–35.25804989
90. Jabour AM The impact of electronic health records on the duration of patients' visits: time and motion study JMIR Med Inform 2020 8 2 e16502 10.2196/16502 32031539
Jabour AM. The impact of electronic health records on the duration of patients’ visits: time and motion study. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(2):e16502.32031539
91. Pare G Raymond L Guinea AO Poba-Nzaou P Trudel MC Marsan J Electronic health record usage behaviors in primary care medical practices: a survey of family physicians in Canada Int J Med Inf 2015 84 10 857 867 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.07.005
Pare G, Raymond L, Guinea AO, Poba-Nzaou P, Trudel MC, Marsan J, et al. Electronic health record usage behaviors in primary care medical practices: a survey of family physicians in Canada. Int J Med Inf. 2015;84(10):857–67.
92. Abidi SR Stewart S Shepherd M Abidi SS Usability evaluation of family physicians' interaction with the Comorbidity Ontological Modeling and ExecuTion System (COMET) Stud Health Technol Inform 2013 192 447 451 23920594
Abidi SR, Stewart S, Shepherd M, Abidi SS. Usability evaluation of family physicians’ interaction with the Comorbidity Ontological Modeling and ExecuTion System (COMET). Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:447–51.23920594
93. Campbell JL Fletcher E Britten N Green C Holt TA Lattimer V Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a clusterrandomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis Lancet 2014 384 9957 1859 1868 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61058-8 25098487
Campbell JL, Fletcher E, Britten N, Green C, Holt TA, Lattimer V, et al. Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a clusterrandomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9957):1859–68.25098487
94. Curry L Reed MH Electronic decision support for diagnostic imaging in a primary care setting J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011 18 3 267 270 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000049 21486884
Curry L, Reed MH. Electronic decision support for diagnostic imaging in a primary care setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):267–70.21486884
95. Dikomitis L Green T Macleod U Embedding electronic decision-support tools for suspected cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of GPs' experiences Prim Health Care Res Dev 2015 16 6 548 555 10.1017/S1463423615000109 25731758
Dikomitis L, Green T, Macleod U. Embedding electronic decision-support tools for suspected cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of GPs’ experiences. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015;16(6):548–55.25731758
96. Feldstein AC Schneider JL Unitan R Perrin NA Smith DH Nichols GA Health care worker perspectives inform optimization of patient panel-support tools: a qualitative study Popul Heath Manage 2013 16 2 107 119 10.1089/pop.2012.0065
Feldstein AC, Schneider JL, Unitan R, Perrin NA, Smith DH, Nichols GA, et al. Health care worker perspectives inform optimization of patient panel-support tools: a qualitative study. Popul Heath Manage. 2013;16(2):107–19.
97. Hoonakker P Khunlertkit A Tattersal M Keevil J Computer decision support tools in primary care Work 2012 41 Suppl 1 4474 4478 10.3233/WOR-2012-0747-4474 22317410
Hoonakker P, Khunlertkit A, Tattersal M, Keevil J. Computer decision support tools in primary care. Work. 2012;41 Suppl 1:4474–8.22317410
98. Lam Shin Cheung J, Paolucci N, Price C, Sykes J, Gupta S. A system uptake analysis and GUIDES checklist evaluation of the electronic asthma management system: a point-of-care computerized clinical decision support system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;2(5):726–37.
99. Lemke AA, Thompson J, Hulick PJ, Sereika AW, Johnson C, Oshman L, et al. Primary care physician experiences utilizing a family health history tool with electronic health record–integrated clinical decision support: an implementation process assessment. J Community Genet. 2020;11(3):339–50.
100. Litvin CB Madison Hyer J Ornstein SM Use of clinical decision support to improve primary care identification and management of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) J Am Board Fam Med 2016 29 5 604 612 10.3122/jabfm.2016.05.160020 27613793
Litvin CB, Madison Hyer J, Ornstein SM. Use of clinical decision support to improve primary care identification and management of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(5):604–12.27613793
101. Millett G Naglie G Upshur R Jaakkimainen L Charles J Tierney MC Computerized cognitive testing in primary care Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2018 32 2 114 119 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000219 29140858
Millett G, Naglie G, Upshur R, Jaakkimainen L, Charles J, Tierney MC. Computerized cognitive testing in primary care. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2018;32(2):114–9.29140858
102. Shao AF Rambaud-Althaus C Swai N Kahama-Maro J Genton B D'Acremont V Can smartphones and tablets improve the management of childhood illness in Tanzania? A qualitative study from a primary health care worker's perspective BMC Health Serv Res 2015 15 135 10.1186/s12913-015-0805-4 25890078
Shao AF, Rambaud-Althaus C, Swai N, Kahama-Maro J, Genton B, D’Acremont V, et al. Can smartphones and tablets improve the management of childhood illness in Tanzania? A qualitative study from a primary health care worker’s perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:135.25890078
103. Shibl R Lawley M Debuse J Factors influencing decision support system acceptance Decis Support Syst 2013 54 2 953 961 10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.018
Shibl R, Lawley M, Debuse J. Factors influencing decision support system acceptance. Decis Support Syst. 2013;54(2):953–61.
104. Williams A Turer C Smith J Nievera I McCulloch L Wareg N Adoption of an electronic medical record tool for childhood obesity by primary care providers Appl Clin Inform 2020 11 2 210 217 10.1055/s-0040-1705106 32187633
Williams A, Turer C, Smith J, Nievera I, McCulloch L, Wareg N, et al. Adoption of an electronic medical record tool for childhood obesity by primary care providers. Appl Clin Inform. 2020;11(2):210–7.32187633
105. Barrett J, Turner B, Silva S, Zychowicz M. Clinical pathways on a mobile device. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019;25(4):131–7.
106. Militello LG Diiulio JB Borders MR Sushereba CE Saleem JJ Haverkamp D Evaluating a modular decision support application for colorectal cancer screening Appl Clin Inform 2017 8 1 162 179 28197619
Militello LG, Diiulio JB, Borders MR, Sushereba CE, Saleem JJ, Haverkamp D, et al. Evaluating a modular decision support application for colorectal cancer screening. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;8(1):162–79.28197619
107. Rokstad IS Rokstad KS Holmen S Lehmann S Assmus J Electronic optional guidelines as a tool to improve the process of referring patients to specialized care: an intervention study Scand J Prim Health Care 2013 31 3 166 171 10.3109/02813432.2013.824155 23941087
Rokstad IS, Rokstad KS, Holmen S, Lehmann S, Assmus J. Electronic optional guidelines as a tool to improve the process of referring patients to specialized care: an intervention study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2013;31(3):166–71.23941087
108. Schroy PC Mylvaganam S Davidson P Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making Health Expect 2014 17 1 27 35 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00730.x 21902773
Schroy PC, Mylvaganam S, Davidson P. Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making. Health Expect. 2014;17(1):27–35.21902773
109. Wu RR Orlando LA Himmel TL Buchanan AH Powell KP Hauser ER Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial BMC Fam Pract 2013 14 1 111 118 10.1186/1471-2296-14-111 23915256
Wu RR, Orlando LA, Himmel TL, Buchanan AH, Powell KP, Hauser ER, et al. Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14(1):111–8.23915256
110. Mensah N Sukums F Awine T Meid A Williams J Akweongo P Impact of an electronic clinical decision support system on workflow in antenatal care: the QUALMAT eCDSS in rural health care facilities in Ghana and Tanzania Glob Health Action 2015 8 25756 10.3402/gha.v8.25756 25630707
Mensah N, Sukums F, Awine T, Meid A, Williams J, Akweongo P, et al. Impact of an electronic clinical decision support system on workflow in antenatal care: the QUALMAT eCDSS in rural health care facilities in Ghana and Tanzania. Glob Health Action. 2015;8: 25756.25630707
111. Fairbrother P Ure J Hanley J McCloughan L Denvir M Sheikh A Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: the views of patients and healthcare professionals - a qualitative study J Clin Nurs 2014 23 1–2 132 144 10.1111/jocn.12137 23451899
Fairbrother P, Ure J, Hanley J, McCloughan L, Denvir M, Sheikh A, et al. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: the views of patients and healthcare professionals - a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1–2):132–44.23451899
112. Goodrich DE Buis LR Janney AW Ditty MD Krause CW Zheng K Integrating an internet-mediated walking program into family medicine clinical practice: a pilot feasibility study BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011 11 47 10.1186/1472-6947-11-47 21702957
Goodrich DE, Buis LR, Janney AW, Ditty MD, Krause CW, Zheng K, et al. Integrating an internet-mediated walking program into family medicine clinical practice: a pilot feasibility study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11: 47.21702957
113. Grant S Hodgkinson J Schwartz C Bradburn P Franssen M Hobbs FDR Using mHealth for the management of hypertension in UK primary care: an embedded qualitative study of the TASMINH4 randomised controlled trial Br J Gen Pract 2019 69 686 E612 E620 10.3399/bjgp19X704585 31262847
Grant S, Hodgkinson J, Schwartz C, Bradburn P, Franssen M, Hobbs FDR, et al. Using mHealth for the management of hypertension in UK primary care: an embedded qualitative study of the TASMINH4 randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(686):E612–20.31262847
114. Hanley J Ure J Pagliari C Sheikh A McKinstry B Experiences of patients and professionals participating in the HITS home blood pressure telemonitoring trial: a qualitative study BMJ Open 2013 3 5 e002671 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002671 23793649
Hanley J, Ure J, Pagliari C, Sheikh A, McKinstry B. Experiences of patients and professionals participating in the HITS home blood pressure telemonitoring trial: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5):e002671.23793649
115. Hans PK Gray CS Gill A Tiessen J The provider perspective: investigating the effect of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile application and portal on primary care provider workflow Prim Health Care Res Dev 2018 19 2 151 164 10.1017/S1463423617000573 28899449
Hans PK, Gray CS, Gill A, Tiessen J. The provider perspective: investigating the effect of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile application and portal on primary care provider workflow. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2018;19(2):151–64.28899449
116. MacNeill V Sanders C Fitzpatrick R Hendy J Barlow J Knapp M Experiences of front-line health professionals in the delivery of telehealth: a qualitative study Br J Gen Pract 2014 64 624 e401 e407 10.3399/bjgp14X680485 24982492
MacNeill V, Sanders C, Fitzpatrick R, Hendy J, Barlow J, Knapp M, et al. Experiences of front-line health professionals in the delivery of telehealth: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64(624):e401–7.24982492
117. Odeh B Kayyali R Nabhani-Gebara S Philip N Implementing a telehealth service: nurses' perceptions and experiences Br J Nurs 2014 23 21 1133 1137 10.12968/bjon.2014.23.21.1133 25426527
Odeh B, Kayyali R, Nabhani-Gebara S, Philip N. Implementing a telehealth service: nurses’ perceptions and experiences. Br J Nurs. 2014;23(21):1133–7.25426527
118. Pichayapinyo P Saslow LR Aikens JE Marinec N Sillabutra J Rattanapongsai P Feasibility study of automated interactive voice response telephone calls with community health nurse follow-up to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes Int J Nurs Pract 2019 25 6 e12781 10.1111/ijn.12781 31531929
Pichayapinyo P, Saslow LR, Aikens JE, Marinec N, Sillabutra J, Rattanapongsai P, et al. Feasibility study of automated interactive voice response telephone calls with community health nurse follow-up to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019;25(6): e12781.31531929
119. Sharma U, Clarke M. Nurses' and community support workers' experience of telehealth: a longitudinal case study. BMC Health Sev Res. 2014;14:164.
120. Taylor J, Coates E, Brewster L, Mountain G, Wessels B, Hawley MS. Examining the use of telehealth in community nursing: identifying the factors affecting frontline staff acceptance and telehealth adoption. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71(2):326–37.
121. Ure J Pinnock H Hanley J Kidd G Smith EM Tarling A Piloting tele-monitoring in COPD: a mixed methods exploration of issues in design and implementation Prim Care Respir J 2012 21 1 57 64 10.4104/pcrj.2011.00065 21785816
Ure J, Pinnock H, Hanley J, Kidd G, Smith EM, Tarling A, et al. Piloting tele-monitoring in COPD: a mixed methods exploration of issues in design and implementation. Prim Care Respir J. 2012;21(1):57–64.21785816
122. Verwey R van der Weegen S Tange H Spreeuwenberg M van der Weijden T de Witte L Get moving: the practice nurse is watching you! a case study of the user-centred design process and testing of a web-based coaching system to stimulate the physical activity of chronically ill patients in primary care Inform Prim Care 2012 20 4 289 298 23890341
Verwey R, van der Weegen S, Tange H, Spreeuwenberg M, van der Weijden T, de Witte L. Get moving: the practice nurse is watching you! a case study of the user-centred design process and testing of a web-based coaching system to stimulate the physical activity of chronically ill patients in primary care. Inform Prim Care. 2012;20(4):289–98.23890341
123. Webb MJ Wadley G Sanci LA Experiences of general practitioners and practice support staff using a health and lifestyle screening app in primary health care: implementation case study JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 6 4 e105 10.2196/mhealth.8778 29691209
Webb MJ, Wadley G, Sanci LA. Experiences of general practitioners and practice support staff using a health and lifestyle screening app in primary health care: implementation case study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(4): e105.29691209
124. Cund A Birch-Jones JL Kay M Connolly P Self-management: keeping it simple with "Flo" Nurs Res Rev 2015 5 49 55 10.2147/NRR.S72791
Cund A, Birch-Jones JL, Kay M, Connolly P. Self-management: keeping it simple with “Flo.” Nurs Res Rev. 2015;5:49–55.
125. Davidson MB Davidson SJ Effect of remote glucose monitoring utilizing computerized insulin dose adjustment algorithms: a pilot project Diabetes Ther 2019 10 2 523 533 10.1007/s13300-019-0565-y 30721451
Davidson MB, Davidson SJ. Effect of remote glucose monitoring utilizing computerized insulin dose adjustment algorithms: a pilot project. Diabetes Ther. 2019;10(2):523–33.30721451
126. Kahalnik F Sanchez K Faria A Grannemann B Jha M Tovian C Improving the identification and treatment of depression in low-income primary care clinics: a qualitative study of providers in the VitalSign6 program Int J Qual Health Care 2019 31 1 57 63 10.1093/intqhc/mzy128 29982702
Kahalnik F, Sanchez K, Faria A, Grannemann B, Jha M, Tovian C, et al. Improving the identification and treatment of depression in low-income primary care clinics: a qualitative study of providers in the VitalSign6 program. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(1):57–63.29982702
127. Diez-Canseco F Toyama M Ipince A Perez-Leon S Cavero V Araya R Integration of a technology-based mental health screening program into routine practices of primary health care services in Peru (The Allillanchu Project): development and implementation J Med Internet Res 2018 20 3 e100 10.2196/jmir.9208 29588272
Diez-Canseco F, Toyama M, Ipince A, Perez-Leon S, Cavero V, Araya R, et al. Integration of a technology-based mental health screening program into routine practices of primary health care services in Peru (The Allillanchu Project): development and implementation. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3): e100.29588272
128. Ginsburg AS Tawiah Agyemang C Ambler G Delarosa J Brunette W Levari S mPneumonia, an innovation for diagnosing and treating childhood pneumonia in low-resource settings: a feasibility, usability and acceptability study in Ghana PLoS One 2016 11 10 e0165201 10.1371/journal.pone.0165201 27788179
Ginsburg AS, Tawiah Agyemang C, Ambler G, Delarosa J, Brunette W, Levari S, et al. mPneumonia, an innovation for diagnosing and treating childhood pneumonia in low-resource settings: a feasibility, usability and acceptability study in Ghana. PLoS One. 2016;11(10): e0165201.27788179
129. Gray CAS Gill A Khan AI Hans P Kuluski K Cott C The electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool: testing usability and feasibility of a mobile app for patients with complex chronic disease and disability in primary care settings Int J Integr Care 2016 16 6 1 2
Gray CAS, Gill A, Khan AI, Hans P, Kuluski K, Cott C. The electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool: testing usability and feasibility of a mobile app for patients with complex chronic disease and disability in primary care settings. Int J Integr Care. 2016;16(6):1–2.
130. Iwu CJ, Ngcobo N, Cooper S, Mathebula L, Mangqalaza H, Magwaca A, et al. Mobile reporting of vaccine stock-levels in primary health care facilities in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa: perceptions and experiences of health care workers. Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2020;16(8):1911–17.
131. Mares ML, Gustafson DH, Glass JE. Implementing an mHealth system for substance use disorders in primary care: a mixed methods study of clinicians' initial expectations and first year experiences. BMC MedInform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):126.
132. Medhanyie AA, Little A. Health workers' experiences, barriers, preferences and motivating factors in using mHealth forms in Ethiopia. Human Resour Health. 2015;13(1):2.
133. Rothstein JD Jennings L Moorthy A Yang F Gee L Romano K Qualitative assessment of the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of a mobile client data app for community-based maternal, neonatal, and child care in Rural Ghana Int J Telemed Appl 2016 2016 2515420 28070186
Rothstein JD, Jennings L, Moorthy A, Yang F, Gee L, Romano K, et al. Qualitative assessment of the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of a mobile client data app for community-based maternal, neonatal, and child care in Rural Ghana. Int J Telemed Appl. 2016;2016:2515420.28070186
134. Schoen J Mallett JW Grossman-Kahn R Brentani A Kaselitz E Heisler M Perspectives and experiences of community health workers in Brazilian primary care centers using m-health tools in home visits with community members Hum Resour Health 2017 15 71 10.1186/s12960-017-0245-9 28962569
Schoen J, Mallett JW, Grossman-Kahn R, Brentani A, Kaselitz E, Heisler M. Perspectives and experiences of community health workers in Brazilian primary care centers using m-health tools in home visits with community members. Hum Resour Health. 2017;15:71.28962569
135. Schooley B Walczak S Hikmet N Patel N Impacts of mobile tablet computing on provider productivity, communications, and the process of care Int J Med Inform 2016 88 62 70 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.01.010 26878764
Schooley B, Walczak S, Hikmet N, Patel N. Impacts of mobile tablet computing on provider productivity, communications, and the process of care. Int J Med Inform. 2016;88:62–70.26878764
136. Poppe L Plaete J Huys N Verloigne M Deveugele M De Bourdeaudhuij I Process evaluation of an eHealth intervention implemented into general practice: general practitioners’ and patients’ views Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018 15 7 1475 10.3390/ijerph15071475 30002338
Poppe L, Plaete J, Huys N, Verloigne M, Deveugele M, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Process evaluation of an eHealth intervention implemented into general practice: general practitioners’ and patients’ views. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7):1475.30002338
137. Agarwal R Angst CM DesRoches CM Fischer MA Technological viewpoints (frames) about electronic prescribing in physician practices J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010 17 4 425 431 10.1136/jamia.2009.001826 20595310
Agarwal R, Angst CM, DesRoches CM, Fischer MA. Technological viewpoints (frames) about electronic prescribing in physician practices. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(4):425–31.20595310
138. Almutairi BA Potts HWW Al-Azmi SF physicians' perceptions of electronic prescribing with electronic medical records in Kuwaiti primary healthcare centres Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2018 18 4 e476 e482 10.18295/squmj.2018.18.04.008 30988966
Almutairi BA, Potts HWW, Al-Azmi SF. physicians’ perceptions of electronic prescribing with electronic medical records in Kuwaiti primary healthcare centres. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2018;18(4):e476–82.30988966
139. Bulut S Yıldız A Kaya S Evaluation of transition to electronic prescriptions in Turkey: perspective of family physicians Int J Health Policy Manag 2018 8 1 40 48 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.89
Bulut S, Yıldız A, Kaya S. Evaluation of transition to electronic prescriptions in Turkey: perspective of family physicians. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;8(1):40–8.
140. Devine EB Williams EC Martin DP Sittig DF Tarczy-Hornoch P Payne TH Prescriber and staff perceptions of an electronic prescribing system in primary care: a qualitative assessment BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010 10 72 10.1186/1472-6947-10-72 21087524
Devine EB, Williams EC, Martin DP, Sittig DF, Tarczy-Hornoch P, Payne TH, et al. Prescriber and staff perceptions of an electronic prescribing system in primary care: a qualitative assessment. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10: 72.21087524
141. Goldman RE Dubé C Lapane KL Beyond the basics: refills by electronic prescribing Int J Med Inform 2010 79 7 507 514 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.04.003 20488746
Goldman RE, Dubé C, Lapane KL. Beyond the basics: refills by electronic prescribing. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(7):507–14.20488746
142. Kivekäs E Enlund H Borycki E Saranto K General practitioners' attitudes towards electronic prescribing and the use of the national prescription centre J Eval Clin Pract 2016 22 5 816 825 10.1111/jep.12548 27121026
Kivekäs E, Enlund H, Borycki E, Saranto K. General practitioners’ attitudes towards electronic prescribing and the use of the national prescription centre. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(5):816–25.27121026
143. Lapane KL Rosen RK Dubé C Perceptions of e-prescribing efficiencies and inefficiencies in ambulatory care Int J Med Inform 2011 80 1 39 46 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.10.018 21112243
Lapane KL, Rosen RK, Dubé C. Perceptions of e-prescribing efficiencies and inefficiencies in ambulatory care. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(1):39–46.21112243
144. Lichtner V Venters W Hibberd R Cornford T Barber N The fungibility of time in claims of efficiency: the case of making transmission of prescriptions electronic in English general practice Int J Med Inf 2013 82 12 1152 1170 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.08.001
Lichtner V, Venters W, Hibberd R, Cornford T, Barber N. The fungibility of time in claims of efficiency: the case of making transmission of prescriptions electronic in English general practice. Int J Med Inf. 2013;82(12):1152–70.
145. Thomas CP Kim M McDonald A Kreiner P Kelleher SJ Jr Blackman MB Prescribers' expectations and barriers to electronic prescribing of controlled substances J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012 19 3 375 381 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000209 21946239
Thomas CP, Kim M, McDonald A, Kreiner P, Kelleher SJ Jr, Blackman MB, et al. Prescribers’ expectations and barriers to electronic prescribing of controlled substances. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(3):375–81.21946239
146. Crosson JC Etz RS Wu S Straus SG Eisenman D Bell DS Meaningful use of electronic prescribing in 5 exemplar primary care practices Ann Fam Med 2011 9 5 392 397 10.1370/afm.1261 21911757
Crosson JC, Etz RS, Wu S, Straus SG, Eisenman D, Bell DS. Meaningful use of electronic prescribing in 5 exemplar primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(5):392–7.21911757
147. Devine EB Hollingworth W Hansen RN Lawless NM Wilson-Norton JL Martin DP Electronic prescribing at the point of care: a time-motion study in the primary care setting Health Serv Res 2010 45 1 152 171 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.01063.x 19929963
Devine EB, Hollingworth W, Hansen RN, Lawless NM, Wilson-Norton JL, Martin DP, et al. Electronic prescribing at the point of care: a time-motion study in the primary care setting. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(1):152–71.19929963
148. Jariwala KS Holmes ER Banahan BF 3rd McCaffrey DJ 3rd Adoption of and experience with e-prescribing by primary care physicians Res Social Adm Pharm 2013 9 1 120 128 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.003 22695213
Jariwala KS, Holmes ER, Banahan BF 3rd, McCaffrey DJ 3rd. Adoption of and experience with e-prescribing by primary care physicians. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(1):120–8. 22695213
149. Atherton H Brant H Ziebland S Bikker A Campbell J Gibson A Alternatives to the face-to-face consultation in general practice: focused ethnographic case study Br J Gen Pract 2018 68 669 e293 e300 10.3399/bjgp18X694853 29378697
Atherton H, Brant H, Ziebland S, Bikker A, Campbell J, Gibson A, et al. Alternatives to the face-to-face consultation in general practice: Focused ethnographic case study. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(669):e293–300. 29378697
150. Atherton H Pappas Y Heneghan C Murray E Experiences of using email for general practice consultations: a qualitative study Br J Gen Pract 2013 63 616 e760 e767 10.3399/bjgp13X674440 24267859
Atherton H, Pappas Y, Heneghan C, Murray E. Experiences of using email for general practice consultations: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(616):e760–7. 24267859
151. Banks J Farr M Edwards H Horwood J Salisbury C Northstone K Use of an electronic consultation system in primary care: a qualitative interview study Br J Gen Pract 2018 68 666 e1 e8 10.3399/bjgp17X693509 29109115
Banks J, Farr M, Edwards H, Horwood J, Salisbury C, Northstone K, et al. Use of an electronic consultation system in primary care: A qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(666):e1–8. 29109115
152. Bavafa H Terwiesch C Work after work: the impact of new service delivery models on work hours J Oper Manag 2019 65 7 636 658 10.1002/joom.1052
Bavafa H, Terwiesch C. Work after work: the impact of new service delivery models on work hours. J Oper Manag. 2019;65(7):636–58.
153. Bishop TF Press MJ Mendelsohn JL Casalino LP Electronic communication improves access, but barriers to its widespread adoption remain Health Aff 2013 32 8 1361 1367 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1151
Bishop TF, Press MJ, Mendelsohn JL, Casalino LP. Electronic Communication Improves Access, But Barriers To Its Widespread Adoption Remain. Health Aff. 2013;32(8):1361–7.
154. Carter M Fletcher E Sansom A Warren FC Campbell JL Feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of an online alternative to face-to-face consultation in general practice: a mixed-methods study of webGP in six Devon practices BMJ Open 2018 8 2 e018688 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018688 29449293
Carter M, Fletcher E, Sansom A, Warren FC, Campbell JL. Feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of an online alternative to face-to-face consultation in general practice: A mixed-methods study of webGP in six Devon practices. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e018688. 29449293
155. Casey M Shaw S Swinglehurst D Experiences with online consultation systems in primary care: case study of one early adopter site Br J Gen Pract 2017 67 664 e736 e743 10.3399/bjgp17X693137 28993306
Casey M, Shaw S, Swinglehurst D. Experiences with online consultation systems in primary care: Case study of one early adopter site. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67(664):e736–43. 28993306
156. Daniel F Jabak S Sasso R Chamoun Y Tamim H Patient-physician communication in the era of mobile phones and social media apps: cross-sectional observational study on Lebanese physicians' perceptions and attitudes JMIR Med Inform 2018 6 2 e18 10.2196/medinform.8895 29625955
Daniel F, Jabak S, Sasso R, Chamoun Y, Tamim H. Patient-Physician Communication in the Era of Mobile Phones and Social Media Apps: Cross-Sectional Observational Study on Lebanese Physicians’ Perceptions and Attitudes. JMIR Med Inform. 2018;6(2): e18. 29625955
157. Farr M Banks J Edwards HB Northstone K Bernard E Salisbury C Implementing online consultations in primary care: a mixed-method evaluation extending normalisation process theory through service co-production BMJ Open 2018 8 3 e019966 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019966 29555817
Farr M, Banks J, Edwards HB, Northstone K, Bernard E, Salisbury C, et al. Implementing online consultations in primary care: A mixed-method evaluation extending normalisation process theory through service co-production. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019966. 29555817
158. Grembowski D Anderson ML Ralston JD Martin DP Reid R Does a large-scale organizational transformation toward patient-centered access change the utilization and costs of care for patients with diabetes? Med Care Res Rev 2012 69 5 519 539 10.1177/1077558712446705 22653416
Grembowski D, Anderson ML, Ralston JD, Martin DP, Reid R. Does a Large-Scale Organizational Transformation Toward Patient-Centered Access Change the Utilization and Costs of Care for Patients With Diabetes? Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69(5):519–39. 22653416
159. Gulzar S, Khoja S, Sajwani A. Experience of nurses with using eHealth in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan: a qualitative study in primary and secondary healthcare. BMC Nurs. 2013;12:6.
160. Hernandez BF Morgan BJ Ish J Agbator LO Lindo-Moon S Stotler FF Communication preferences and satisfaction of secure messaging among patients and providers in the military healthcare system Mil Med 2018 183 11–12 e383 e390 10.1093/milmed/usy094 29741659
Hernandez BF, Morgan BJ, Ish J, Agbator LO, Lindo-Moon S, Stotler FF, et al. Communication preferences and satisfaction of secure messaging among patients and providers in the military healthcare system. Mil Med. 2018;183(11–12):e383–90.29741659
161. Hoonakker PLT Carayon P Cartmill RS The impact of secure messaging on workflow in primary care: results of a multiple-case, multiple-method study Int J Med Informatics 2017 100 63 76 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.01.004
Hoonakker PLT, Carayon P, Cartmill RS. The impact of secure messaging on workflow in primary care: results of a multiple-case, multiple-method study. Int J Med Informatics. 2017;100:63–76.
162. Johnson LW Garrido T Christensen K Handley M Successful practices in the use of secure e-mail Perm J 2014 18 3 50 54 10.7812/TPP/13-160 24937149
Johnson LW, Garrido T, Christensen K, Handley M. Successful practices in the use of secure e-mail. Perm J. 2014;18(3):50–4. 24937149
163. Lee MS Ray KN Mehrotra A Giboney P Yee HF Barnett ML Primary care practitioners' perceptions of electronic consult systems: a qualitative analysis JAMA Intern Med 2018 178 6 782 789 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0738 29801079
Lee MS, Ray KN, Mehrotra A, Giboney P, Yee HF, Barnett ML. Primary care practitioners’ perceptions of electronic consult systems: a qualitative analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(6):782–9.29801079
164. Lieu TA, Altschuler A, Weiner JZ, East JA, Moeller MF, Prausnitz S, et al. Primary Care Physicians' Experiences with and Strategies for Managing Electronic Messages. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(12):e1918287.
165. Moffatt JJ Eley DS Barriers to the up-take of telemedicine in Australia–a view from providers Rural Remote Health 2011 11 2 1581 21385004
Moffatt JJ, Eley DS. Barriers to the up-take of telemedicine in Australia–a view from providers. Rural Remote Health. 2011;11(2):1581. 21385004
166. Nazi KM The personal health record paradox: health care professionals' perspectives and the information ecology of personal health record systems in organizational and clinical settings J Med Internet Res 2013 15 4 e70 10.2196/jmir.2443 23557596
Nazi KM. The personal health record paradox: health care professionals’ perspectives and the information ecology of personal health record systems in organizational and clinical settings. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(4): e70. 23557596
167. Ozkaynak M Johnson S Shimada S Petrakis BA Tulu B Archambeault C Examining the multi-level fit between work and technology in a secure messaging implementation AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2014 2014 954 962 25954403
Ozkaynak M, Johnson S, Shimada S, Petrakis BA, Tulu B, Archambeault C, et al. Examining the multi-level fit between work and technology in a secure messaging implementation. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2014;2014:954–62.25954403
168. Popeski N McKeen C Khokhar B Edwards A Ghali WA Sargious P Perceived barriers to and facilitators of patient-to-provider e-mail in the management of diabetes care Can j diabetes 2015 39 6 478 483 10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.07.001 26409770
Popeski N, McKeen C, Khokhar B, Edwards A, Ghali WA, Sargious P, et al. Perceived Barriers to and Facilitators of Patient-to-Provider E-Mail in the Management of Diabetes Care. Can j diabetes. 2015;39(6):478–83. 26409770
169. Sampson R Barbour R Wilson P Email communication at the medical primary-secondary care interface: a qualitative exploration Br J Gen Pract 2016 66 648 e467 e473 10.3399/bjgp16X685273 27162209
Sampson R, Barbour R, Wilson P. Email communication at the medical primary-secondary care interface: a qualitative exploration. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(648):e467–73.27162209
170. Sims MH Fagnano M Halterman JS Halterman MW Provider impressions of the use of a mobile crowdsourcing app in medical practice Health Informatics J 2016 22 2 221 231 10.1177/1460458214545896 25167866
Sims MH, Fagnano M, Halterman JS, Halterman MW. Provider impressions of the use of a mobile crowdsourcing app in medical practice. Health Informatics J. 2016;22(2):221–31.25167866
171. Tuot DS Liddy C Vimalananda VG Pecina J Murphy EJ Keely E Evaluating diverse electronic consultation programs with a common framework BMC Health Serv Res 2018 18 1 814 10.1186/s12913-018-3626-4 30355346
Tuot DS, Liddy C, Vimalananda VG, Pecina J, Murphy EJ, Keely E, et al. Evaluating diverse electronic consultation programs with a common framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):814.30355346
172. Vydra TP Cuaresma E Kretovics M Bose-Brill S Diffusion and use of tethered personal health records in primary care Perspect Health Inf Manag 2015 12 1c 26755897
Vydra TP, Cuaresma E, Kretovics M, Bose-Brill S. Diffusion and use of tethered personal health records in primary care. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2015;12:1c.26755897
173. Zallman L, Fisher CF, Ladner S, Mengistu K, Rapaport AB, Bor D, et al. Inter-clinician eConsults without programmatic incentives or requirements: a qualitative study of primary care provider perspectives. Fam Pract. 2020;37(4):525–9.
174. Adamson SC Bachman JW Pilot study of providing online care in a primary care setting Mayo Clin Proc 2010 85 8 704 710 10.4065/mcp.2010.0145 20516427
Adamson SC, Bachman JW. Pilot study of providing online care in a primary care setting. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85(8):704–10. 20516427
175. Cowie J Calveley E Bowers G Bowers J Evaluation of a digital consultation and self-care advice tool in primary care: a multi-methods study 2018
Cowie J, Calveley E, Bowers G, Bowers J. Evaluation of a digital consultation and self-care advice tool in primary care: a multi-methods study. 2018.
176. Dash J Haller DM Sommer J Junod PN Use of email, cell phone and text message between patients and primary-care physicians: cross-sectional study in a French-speaking part of Switzerland BMC Health Serv Res 2016 16 1 549 10.1186/s12913-016-1776-9 27716256
Dash J, Haller DM, Sommer J, Junod PN. Use of email, cell phone and text message between patients and primary-care physicians: cross-sectional study in a French-speaking part of Switzerland. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):549. 27716256
177. Dixon RF Rao L Asynchronous virtual visits for the follow-up of chronic conditions Telemed E-Health 2014 20 7 669 672 10.1089/tmj.2013.0211
Dixon RF, Rao L. Asynchronous virtual visits for the follow-up of chronic conditions. Telemed E-Health. 2014;20(7):669–72.
178. Fagerlund AJ Holm IM Zanaboni P General practitioners' perceptions towards the use of digital health services for citizens in primary care: a qualitative interview study BMJ Open 2019 9 5 e028251 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028251 31061056
Fagerlund AJ, Holm IM, Zanaboni P. General practitioners' perceptions towards the use of digital health services for citizens in primary care: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e028251. 31061056
179. Lacasta Tintorer D Manresa Domínguez JM Pujol-Rivera E Flayeh Beneyto S Mundet Tuduri X Saigí-Rubió F Keys to success of a community of clinical practice in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of the ECOPIH project BMC Fam Pract 2018 19 1 56 10.1186/s12875-018-0739-0 29743030
Lacasta Tintorer D, Manresa Domínguez JM, Pujol-Rivera E, Flayeh Beneyto S, Mundet Tuduri X, Saigí-Rubió F. Keys to success of a community of clinical practice in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of the ECOPIH project. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19(1):56. 29743030
180. Padman R Shevchik G Paone S Dolezal C Cervenak J eVisit: a pilot study of a new kind of healthcare delivery Stud Health Technol Inform 2010 160 Pt 1 262 266 20841690
Padman R, Shevchik G, Paone S, Dolezal C, Cervenak J. eVisit: a pilot study of a new kind of healthcare delivery. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):262–6. 20841690
181. Donaghy E Atherton H Hammersley V McNeilly H Bikker A Robbins L Acceptability, benefits, and challenges of video consulting: a qualitative study in primary care Br J Gen Pract 2019 69 686 E586 E594 10.3399/bjgp19X704141 31160368
Donaghy E, Atherton H, Hammersley V, McNeilly H, Bikker A, Robbins L, et al. Acceptability, benefits, and challenges of video consulting: A qualitative study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(686):E586–94. 31160368
182. Edwards HB Marques E Hollingworth W Horwood J Farr M Bernard E Use of a primary care online consultation system, by whom, when and why: evaluation of a pilot observational study in 36 general practices in South West England BMJ Open 2017 7 11 e016901 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016901 29167106
Edwards HB, Marques E, Hollingworth W, Horwood J, Farr M, Bernard E, et al. Use of a primary care online consultation system, by whom, when and why: Evaluation of a pilot observational study in 36 general practices in South West England. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e016901. 29167106
183. Garrido T Meng D Wang JJ Palen TE Kanter MH Secure e-mailing between physicians and patients: transformational change in ambulatory care J Ambul Care Manage 2014 37 3 211 218 10.1097/JAC.0000000000000043 24887522
Garrido T, Meng D, Wang JJ, Palen TE, Kanter MH. Secure e-mailing between physicians and patients: transformational change in ambulatory care. J Ambul Care Manage. 2014;37(3):211–8.24887522
184. North F Crane SJ Chaudhry R Ebbert JO Ytterberg K Tulledge-Scheitel SM Impact of patient portal secure messages and electronic visits on adult primary care office visits Telemed J E Health 2014 20 3 192 198 10.1089/tmj.2013.0097 24350803
North F, Crane SJ, Chaudhry R, Ebbert JO, Ytterberg K, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, et al. Impact of patient portal secure messages and electronic visits on adult primary care office visits. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(3):192–8.24350803
185. Palen TE Price D Shetterly S Wallace KB Comparing virtual consults to traditional consults using an electronic health record: an observational case-control study BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012 12 65 10.1186/1472-6947-12-65 22769592
Palen TE, Price D, Shetterly S, Wallace KB. Comparing virtual consults to traditional consults using an electronic health record: an observational case-control study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:65. 22769592
186. Dang S Ruiz DI Klepac L Morse S Becker P Levy CR Key characteristics for successful adoption and implementation of home telehealth technology in veterans affairs home-based primary care: an exploratory study Telemed J E Health 2019 25 4 309 318 10.1089/tmj.2018.0009 29969381
Dang S, Ruiz DI, Klepac L, Morse S, Becker P, Levy CR, et al. Key Characteristics for Successful Adoption and Implementation of Home Telehealth Technology in Veterans Affairs Home-Based Primary Care: An Exploratory Study. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(4):309–18. 29969381
187. Donald M McBrien K Jackson W Manns BJ Tonelli M King-Shier K Development and implementation of an online clinical pathway for adult chronic kidney disease in primary care: a mixed methods study BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016 16 109 10.1186/s12911-016-0350-z 27535555
Donald M, McBrien K, Jackson W, Manns BJ, Tonelli M, King-Shier K, et al. Development and implementation of an online clinical pathway for adult chronic kidney disease in primary care: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:109. 27535555
188. Wilt Td, Versluis A, Goedhart A, Talboom-Kamp E. General practitioners attitude towards the use of eHealth and online testing in primary care. Clinical eHealth. 2020;3:16–22.
189. Davidson E Simpson CR Demiris G Sheikh A McKinstry B Integrating telehealth care-generated data with the family practice electronic medical record: qualitative exploration of the views of primary care staff Interact J Med Res 2013 2 2 e29 10.2196/ijmr.2820 24280631
Davidson E, Simpson CR, Demiris G, Sheikh A, McKinstry B. Integrating telehealth care-generated data with the family practice electronic medical record: qualitative exploration of the views of primary care staff. Interact J Med Res. 2013;2(2): e29. 24280631
190. Harshbarger C Burrus O Zulkiewicz BA Ortiz AM Galindo CA Garner BR Implementing web-based interventions in HIV primary care clinics: pilot implementation evaluation of positive health check JMIR Form Res 2019 3 2 e10688 10.2196/10688 30998219
Harshbarger C, Burrus O, Zulkiewicz BA, Ortiz AM, Galindo CA, Garner BR, et al. Implementing Web-Based Interventions in HIV Primary Care Clinics: Pilot Implementation Evaluation of Positive Health Check. JMIR Form Res. 2019;3(2): e10688. 30998219
191. Bardsley M Steventon A Doll H Impact of telehealth on general practice contacts: findings from the whole systems demonstrator cluster randomised trial BMC Health Serv Res 2013 13 395 10.1186/1472-6963-13-395 24099334
Bardsley M, Steventon A, Doll H. Impact of telehealth on general practice contacts: findings from the whole systems demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Bmc Health Services Research. 2013;13:395.24099334
192. Delbanco T Walker J Bell SK Darer JD Elmore JG Farag N Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead Ann Intern Med 2012 157 7 461 470 10.7326/0003-4819-157-7-201210020-00002 23027317
Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, Darer JD, Elmore JG, Farag N, et al. Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(7):461–70. 23027317
193. Fitton C Fitton R Hannan A Fisher B Morgan L Halsall D The impact of patient record access on appointments and telephone calls in two English general practices: a populationbased study London J Prim Care 2014 6 8 15 10.1080/17571472.2014.11493405
Fitton C, Fitton R, Hannan A, Fisher B, Morgan L, Halsall D. The impact of patient record access on appointments and telephone calls in two english general practices: A populationbased study. London J Prim Care. 2014;6:8–15.
194. Miller DP Jr Latulipe C Melius KA Quandt SA Arcury TA Primary care providers' views of patient portals: interview study of perceived benefits and consequences J Med Internet Res 2016 18 1 e8 10.2196/jmir.4953 26772771
Miller DP Jr, Latulipe C, Melius KA, Quandt SA, Arcury TA. Primary Care Providers’ Views of Patient Portals: Interview Study of Perceived Benefits and Consequences. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(1): e8. 26772771
195. Pagliari C Shand T Fisher B Embedding online patient record access in UK primary care: a survey of stakeholder experiences JRSM Short Rep 2012 3 5 34 10.1258/shorts.2012.012009 22666531
Pagliari C, Shand T, Fisher B. Embedding online patient record access in UK primary care: a survey of stakeholder experiences. JRSM Short Rep. 2012;3(5):34. 22666531
196. Sorondo B Allen A Bayleran J Doore S Fathima S Sabbagh I Using a patient portal to transmit patient reported health information into the electronic record: workflow implications and user experience EGEMS (Wash DC) 2016 4 3 1237 27683669
Sorondo B, Allen A, Bayleran J, Doore S, Fathima S, Sabbagh I, et al. Using a patient portal to transmit patient reported health information into the electronic record: workflow implications and user experience. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016;4(3):1237.27683669
197. Palen TE Ross C Powers JD Xu S Association of online patient access to clinicians and medical records with use of clinical services JAMA 2012 308 19 2012 2019 10.1001/jama.2012.14126 23168824
Palen TE, Ross C, Powers JD, Xu S. Association of Online Patient Access to Clinicians and Medical Records With Use of Clinical Services. JAMA. 2012;308(19):2012–9. 23168824
198. Raza Khan U Zia TA Pearce C Perera K The MyHealthRecord system impacts on patient workflow in general practices Stud Health Technol Inform 2019 266 162 167 31397318
Raza Khan U, Zia TA, Pearce C, Perera K. The MyHealthRecord system impacts on patient workflow in general practices. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;266:162–7.31397318
199. Compeau DR Terry A Connecting medical records: an evaluation of benefits and challenges for primary care practices J Innov Health Inform 2017 24 2 855 10.14236/jhi.v24i2.855 28749315
Compeau DR, Terry A. Connecting Medical Records: An Evaluation of Benefits and Challenges for Primary Care Practices. J Innov Health Inform. 2017;24(2):855. 28749315
200. Mac McCullough J Zimmerman FJ Bell DS Rodriguez HP Electronic health information exchange in underserved settings: examining initiatives in small physician practices and community health centers BMC Health Serv Res 2014 14 415 10.1186/1472-6963-14-415 25240718
Mac McCullough J, Zimmerman FJ, Bell DS, Rodriguez HP. Electronic health information exchange in underserved settings: examining initiatives in small physician practices and community health centers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:415.25240718
201. Nagykaldi ZJ Yeaman B Jones M Mold JW Scheid DC HIE-i-health information exchange with intelligence J Ambul Care Manage 2014 37 1 20 31 10.1097/JAC.0000000000000002 24309392
Nagykaldi ZJ, Yeaman B, Jones M, Mold JW, Scheid DC. HIE-i-health information exchange with intelligence. J Ambul Care Manage. 2014;37(1):20–31.24309392
202. Rudin R Volk L Simon S Bates D What affects clinicians' usage of health information exchange? Appl Clin Inform 2011 2 3 250 262 10.4338/ACI-2011-03-RA-0021 22180762
Rudin R, Volk L, Simon S, Bates D. What affects clinicians’ usage of health information exchange? Appl Clin Inform. 2011;2(3):250–62.22180762
203. Sandberg JC Ge Y Nguyen HT Arcury TA Johnson AJ Hwang W Insight into the sharing of medical images: physician, other health care providers, and staff experience in a variety of medical settings Appl Clin Inform 2012 3 4 475 487 10.4338/ACI-2012-06-RA-0022 23646092
Sandberg JC, Ge Y, Nguyen HT, Arcury TA, Johnson AJ, Hwang W, et al. Insight into the sharing of medical images: physician, other health care providers, and staff experience in a variety of medical settings. Appl Clin Inform. 2012;3(4):475–87.23646092
204. Motulsky A Sicotte C Moreault MP Schuster T Girard N Buckeridge D Using health information exchange: usage and perceived usefulness in primary care Stud Health Technol Inform 2019 264 709 713 31438016
Motulsky A, Sicotte C, Moreault MP, Schuster T, Girard N, Buckeridge D, et al. Using health information exchange: usage and perceived usefulness in primary care. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;264:709–13.31438016
205. Bessat C Zonon NA D'Acremont V Large-scale implementation of electronic Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (eIMCI) at the primary care level in Burkina Faso: a qualitative study on health worker perception of its medical content, usability and impact on antibiotic prescription and resistance BMC Public Health 2019 19 1 449 10.1186/s12889-019-6692-6 31035968
Bessat C, Zonon NA, D’Acremont V. Large-scale implementation of electronic Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (eIMCI) at the primary care level in Burkina Faso: a qualitative study on health worker perception of its medical content, usability and impact on antibiotic prescription and resistance. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):449.31035968
206. Fabrellas N Sanchez C Juve E Aurin E Monserrat D Casanovas E A program of nurse algorithm-guided care for adult patients with acute minor illnesses in primary care BMC Fam Pract 2013 14 61 10.1186/1471-2296-14-61 23679821
Fabrellas N, Sanchez C, Juve E, Aurin E, Monserrat D, Casanovas E, et al. A program of nurse algorithm-guided care for adult patients with acute minor illnesses in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:61.23679821
207. Long J Yuan MJ Poonawala R An observational study to evaluate the usability and intent to adopt an artificial intelligence-powered medication reconciliation tool Interact J Med Res 2016 5 2 e14 10.2196/ijmr.5462 27185210
Long J, Yuan MJ, Poonawala R. An observational study to evaluate the usability and intent to adopt an artificial intelligence-powered medication reconciliation tool. Interact J Med Res. 2016;5(2): e14.27185210
208. Mason B Boyd K Steyn J Kendall M Macpherson S Murray SA Computer screening for palliative care needs in primary care: a mixed-methods study Br J Gen Pract 2018 68 670 e360 e369 10.3399/bjgp18X695729 29581129
Mason B, Boyd K, Steyn J, Kendall M, Macpherson S, Murray SA. Computer screening for palliative care needs in primary care: a mixed-methods study. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(670):e360–9.29581129
209. Krog MD Nielsen MG Le JV Bro F Christensen KS Mygind A Barriers and facilitators to using a web-based tool for diagnosis and monitoring of patients with depression: a qualitative study among Danish general practitioners BMC Health Serv Res 2018 18 1 503 10.1186/s12913-018-3309-1 29945613
Krog MD, Nielsen MG, Le JV, Bro F, Christensen KS, Mygind A. Barriers and facilitators to using a web-based tool for diagnosis and monitoring of patients with depression: a qualitative study among Danish general practitioners. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):503.29945613
210. Sogomonjan M Kerikmae T Oopik P Ross P A report on the survey. Attitudes of Estonian healthcare professionals to internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy Cogent Psychol 2019 6 1 1637623 10.1080/23311908.2019.1637623
Sogomonjan M, Kerikmae T, Oopik P, Ross P. A report on the survey. Attitudes of Estonian healthcare professionals to internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy. Cogent Psychol. 2019;6(1):1637623.
211. Fortney JC MacIejewski ML Tripathi SP Deen TL Pyne JM A budget impact analysis of telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression Med Care 2011 49 9 872 880 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31821d2b35 21623240
Fortney JC, MacIejewski ML, Tripathi SP, Deen TL, Pyne JM. A budget impact analysis of telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression. Med Care. 2011;49(9):872–80.21623240
212. Montero-Marin J Gaete J Araya R Demarzo M Manzanera R Alvarez de Mon M Impact of a blended web-based mindfulness programme for general practitioners: a pilot study Mindfulness 2018 9 1 129 139 10.1007/s12671-017-0752-8
Montero-Marin J, Gaete J, Araya R, Demarzo M, Manzanera R, Alvarez de Mon M, et al. Impact of a blended web-based mindfulness programme for general practitioners: a pilot study. Mindfulness. 2018;9(1):129–39.
213. O'Brien MA Sullivan F Carson A Siddiqui R Syed S Paszat L Piloting electronic screening forms in primary care: findings from a mixed methods study to identify patients eligible for low dose CT lung cancer screening BMC Fam Pract 2017 18 1 95 10.1186/s12875-017-0666-5 29179686
O’Brien MA, Sullivan F, Carson A, Siddiqui R, Syed S, Paszat L. Piloting electronic screening forms in primary care: findings from a mixed methods study to identify patients eligible for low dose CT lung cancer screening. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18(1):95.29179686
214. Paul CL Carey M Yoong SL D'Este C Makeham M Henskens F Access to chronic disease care in general practice: the acceptability of implementing systematic waiting-room screening using computer-based patient-reported risk status Br J Gen Pract 2013 63 614 e620 e626 10.3399/bjgp13X671605 23998842
Paul CL, Carey M, Yoong SL, D’Este C, Makeham M, Henskens F. Access to chronic disease care in general practice: the acceptability of implementing systematic waiting-room screening using computer-based patient-reported risk status. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(614):e620–6.23998842
215. Lowe C Cummin D The use of kiosk technology in general practice J Telemed Telecare 2010 16 4 201 203 10.1258/jtt.2010.004011 20511575
Lowe C, Cummin D. The use of kiosk technology in general practice. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(4):201–3.20511575
216. Bowie P Halley L McKay J Laboratory test ordering and results management systems: a qualitative study of safety risks identified by administrators in general practice BMJ Open 2014 4 2 e004245 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004245 24503302
Bowie P, Halley L, McKay J. Laboratory test ordering and results management systems: a qualitative study of safety risks identified by administrators in general practice. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2): e004245.24503302
217. Whiting D Croker R Watson J Brogan A Walker AJ Lewis T Optimising laboratory monitoring of chronic conditions in primary care: a quality improvement framework BMJ Open Qual 2019 8 1 e000349 10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000349 30997410
Whiting D, Croker R, Watson J, Brogan A, Walker AJ, Lewis T. Optimising laboratory monitoring of chronic conditions in primary care: a quality improvement framework. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(1): e000349.30997410
218. Armstrong AW Kwong MW Chase EP Ledo L Nesbitt TS Shewry SL Teledermatology operational considerations, challenges, and benefits: the referring providers' perspective Telemed J E Health 2012 18 8 580 584 10.1089/tmj.2011.0241 22881579
Armstrong AW, Kwong MW, Chase EP, Ledo L, Nesbitt TS, Shewry SL. Teledermatology operational considerations, challenges, and benefits: the referring providers’ perspective. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18(8):580–4.22881579
219. McFarland LV Raugi GJ Reiber GE Primary care provider and imaging technician satisfaction with a teledermatology project in rural Veterans Health Administration clinics Telemed J E Health 2013 19 11 815 825 10.1089/tmj.2012.0327 24053115
McFarland LV, Raugi GJ, Reiber GE. Primary care provider and imaging technician satisfaction with a teledermatology project in rural Veterans Health Administration clinics. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(11):815–25.24053115
220. Janda M Horsham C Koh U Gillespie N Vagenas D Loescher LJ Evaluating healthcare practitioners' views on store-and-forward teledermoscopy services for the diagnosis of skin cancer Digit Health 2019 5 2055207619828225 30792879
Janda M, Horsham C, Koh U, Gillespie N, Vagenas D, Loescher LJ, et al. Evaluating healthcare practitioners’ views on store-and-forward teledermoscopy services for the diagnosis of skin cancer. Digit Health. 2019;5:2055207619828225.30792879
221. Butler A Canamucio A Macpherson D Skoko J True G Primary care staff perspectives on a virtual learning collaborative to support medical home implementation J Gen Intern Med 2014 29 579 588 10.1007/s11606-013-2668-x 24234394
Butler A, Canamucio A, Macpherson D, Skoko J, True G. Primary care staff perspectives on a virtual learning collaborative to support medical home implementation. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:579–88.24234394
222. Albrecht UV Afshar K Illiger K Becker S Hartz T Breil B Expectancy, usage and acceptance by general practitioners and patients: exploratory results from a study in the German outpatient sector Digit Health 2017 3 2055207617695135 29942582
Albrecht UV, Afshar K, Illiger K, Becker S, Hartz T, Breil B, et al. Expectancy, usage and acceptance by general practitioners and patients: exploratory results from a study in the German outpatient sector. Digit Health. 2017;3:2055207617695135.29942582
223. Guldberg TL Vedsted P Lauritzen T Zoffmann V Suboptimal quality of type 2 diabetes care discovered through electronic feedback led to increased nurse-GP cooperation. A qualitative study Prim Care Diabetes 2010 4 1 33 39 10.1016/j.pcd.2010.01.001 20096659
Guldberg TL, Vedsted P, Lauritzen T, Zoffmann V. Suboptimal quality of type 2 diabetes care discovered through electronic feedback led to increased nurse-GP cooperation. A qualitative study. Prim Care Diabetes. 2010;4(1):33–9.20096659
224. Bouskill K Smith-Morris C Bresnick G Cuadros J Pedersen ER Blind spots in telemedicine: a qualitative study of staff workarounds to resolve gaps in diabetes management BMC Health Serv Res 2018 18 1 617 10.1186/s12913-018-3427-9 30086743
Bouskill K, Smith-Morris C, Bresnick G, Cuadros J, Pedersen ER. Blind spots in telemedicine: a qualitative study of staff workarounds to resolve gaps in diabetes management. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):617.30086743
225. Nemeth LS Ornstein SM Jenkins RG Wessell AM Nietert PJ Implementing and evaluating electronic standing orders in primary care practice: a PPRNet study J Am Board Fam Med 2012 25 5 594 604 10.3122/jabfm.2012.05.110214 22956695
Nemeth LS, Ornstein SM, Jenkins RG, Wessell AM, Nietert PJ. Implementing and evaluating electronic standing orders in primary care practice: a PPRNet study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(5):594–604.22956695
226. Savoy A Patel H Flanagan ME Daggy JK Russ AL Weiner M Comparative usability evaluation of consultation order templates in a simulated primary care environment Appl Ergon 2018 73 22 32 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.013 30098639
Savoy A, Patel H, Flanagan ME, Daggy JK, Russ AL, Weiner M. Comparative usability evaluation of consultation order templates in a simulated primary care environment. Appl Ergon. 2018;73:22–32.30098639
227. Irfan KS Farhana I Eiad AF Nassr AM Al Mohammed AQ Maya N Family physicians' utility of social media: a survey comparison among family medicine residents and physicians Afr Health Sci 2018 18 3 817 827 10.4314/ahs.v18i3.41 30603016
Irfan KS, Farhana I, Eiad AF, Nassr AM, Al Mohammed AQ, Maya N, et al. Family physicians’ utility of social media: a survey comparison among family medicine residents and physicians. Afr Health Sci. 2018;18(3):817–27.30603016
228. Schoenhaus R Lustig A Rivas S Monrreal V Westrich KD Dubois RW Using an electronic medication refill system to improve provider productivity in an accountable care setting J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2016 22 3 204 208 27003549
Schoenhaus R, Lustig A, Rivas S, Monrreal V, Westrich KD, Dubois RW. Using an electronic medication refill system to improve provider productivity in an accountable care setting. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(3):204–8.27003549
229. Ho K Nguyen A Jarvis-Selinger S Novak Lauscher H Cressman C Zibrik L Technology-enabled academic detailing: computer-mediated education between pharmacists and physicians for evidence-based prescribing Int J Med Inform 2013 82 9 762 771 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.04.011 23770028
Ho K, Nguyen A, Jarvis-Selinger S, Novak Lauscher H, Cressman C, Zibrik L. Technology-enabled academic detailing: computer-mediated education between pharmacists and physicians for evidence-based prescribing. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(9):762–71.23770028
230. Chiasson AM Brooks AJ Ricker M Lebensohn P Chen MK Maizes V Educating physicians in family medicine residencies about nonpharmacologic approaches to pain: results of an online integrative course Fam Med 2020 52 3 189 197 10.22454/FamMed.2020.865003 32027377
Chiasson AM, Brooks AJ, Ricker M, Lebensohn P, Chen MK, Maizes V. Educating physicians in family medicine residencies about nonpharmacologic approaches to pain: results of an online integrative course. Fam Med. 2020;52(3):189–97.32027377
231. Nguyen L Bellucci E Nguyen LT Electronic health records implementation: an evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors Int J Med Inform 2014 83 11 779 796 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.06.011 25085286
Nguyen L, Bellucci E, Nguyen LT. Electronic health records implementation: an evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(11):779–96.25085286
232. Budd J Burnout related to electronic health record use in primary care J Prim Care Community Health 2023 14 21501319231166921 10.1177/21501319231166921 37073905
Budd J. Burnout related to electronic health record use in primary care. J Prim Care Community Health. 2023;14:21501319231166920.37073905
233. Gagnon MP, Ngangue P. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):212–20.
234. Addotey-Delove M Scott RE Mars M Healthcare workers’ perspectives of mHealth adoption factors in the developing world: scoping review Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023 20 2 1244 10.3390/ijerph20021244 36673995
Addotey-Delove M, Scott RE, Mars M. Healthcare workers’ perspectives of mHealth adoption factors in the developing world: scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2): 1244.36673995
235. De Lusignan S Mold F Sheikh A Majeed A Wyatt JC Quinn T Patients' online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic interpretative review BMJ Open 2014 4 e006021 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006021 25200561
De Lusignan S, Mold F, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Wyatt JC, Quinn T, et al. Patients’ online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic interpretative review. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006021.25200561
236. Tapuria A Porat T Kalra D Dsouza G Xiaohui S Curcin V Impact of patient access to their electronic health record: systematic review Inform Health Soc Care 2021 46 2 194 206 10.1080/17538157.2021.1879810
Tapuria A, Porat T, Kalra D, Dsouza G, Xiaohui S, Curcin V. Impact of patient access to their electronic health record: systematic review. Inform Health Soc Care. 2021;46(2):194–206.
237. Gagnon MP Nsangou ÉR Payne-Gagnon J Grenier S Sicotte C Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups' perceptions J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014 21 3 535 541 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002203 24130232
Gagnon MP, Nsangou ÉR, Payne-Gagnon J, Grenier S, Sicotte C. Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups’ perceptions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(3):535–41.24130232
238. Karsh BT Holden R Or CK Human factors and ergonomics of health information technology implementation 2011 p. 249 64
Karsh BT, Holden R, Or CK. Human factors and ergonomics of health information technology implementation. 2011. p. 249–64.
239. Sittig DF Singh H A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems Qual Saf Health Care 2010 19 Suppl 3 Suppl 3 i68 74 10.1136/qshc.2010.042085 20959322
Sittig DF, Singh H. A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):i68-74.20959322
240. Ross J Stevenson F Lau R Murray E Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) Implement Sci 2016 11 1 146 10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7 27782832
Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):146.27782832
241. Darley S Coulson T Peek N Moschogianis S van der Veer SN Wong DC Understanding how the design and implementation of online consultations affect primary care quality: systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers J Med Internet Res 2022 24 10 e37436 10.2196/37436 36279172
Darley S, Coulson T, Peek N, Moschogianis S, van der Veer SN, Wong DC, et al. Understanding how the design and implementation of online consultations affect primary care quality: systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(10): e37436.36279172
242. Smart C Newman C Hartill L Bunce S McCormick J Workload effects of online consultation implementation from a job-characteristics model perspective: a qualitative study BJGP Open 2023 7 1 BJGPO.2022.0024 10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0024 36410768
Smart C, Newman C, Hartill L, Bunce S, McCormick J. Workload effects of online consultation implementation from a job-characteristics model perspective: a qualitative study. BJGP Open. 2023;7(1):BJGPO.2022.0024.36410768
243. Rotenstein LS Holmgren AJ Horn DM Lipsitz S Phillips R Gitomer R System-level factors and time spent on electronic health records by primary care physicians JAMA Netw Open 2023 6 11 e2344713 e 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44713 37991757
Rotenstein LS, Holmgren AJ, Horn DM, Lipsitz S, Phillips R, Gitomer R, et al. System-level factors and time spent on electronic health records by primary care physicians. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2344713-e.37991757
244. Tawfik D, Bayati M, Liu J, Nguyen L, Sinha A, Kannampallil T, et al. Predicting primary care physician burnout from electronic health record use measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2024;99(9):1411–21.
245. Rittenberg E Liebman JB Rexrode KM Primary care physician gender and electronic health record workload J Gen Intern Med 2022 37 13 3295 3301 10.1007/s11606-021-07298-z 34993875
Rittenberg E, Liebman JB, Rexrode KM. Primary care physician gender and electronic health record workload. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(13):3295–301.34993875
246. Rogers E Diffusions of innovations 2003 New York Simon & Schuster
Rogers E. Diffusions of innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2003.
247. Tungate AS Conners FA Executive function in down syndrome: a meta-analysis Res Dev Disabil 2021 108 103802 10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103802 33341075
Tungate AS, Conners FA. Executive function in down syndrome: a meta-analysis. Res Dev Disabil. 2021;108: 103802.33341075
248. Lau F Kuziemsky C Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach 2017 Victoria (BC) University of Victoria
Lau F, Kuziemsky C. Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017. Copyright © 2016 Francis Lau and Craig Kuziemsky.
