从卫生专业人员的角度来看,卫生信息系统使用的推动者和障碍:范围审查。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Pub Date : 2025-07-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S515295
Nur Yuliasih, Qisty A Khoiry, Sofa D Alfian, Auliya A Suwantika, Rizky Abdulah
{"title":"从卫生专业人员的角度来看,卫生信息系统使用的推动者和障碍:范围审查。","authors":"Nur Yuliasih, Qisty A Khoiry, Sofa D Alfian, Auliya A Suwantika, Rizky Abdulah","doi":"10.2147/JMDH.S515295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to present factors that potentially influenced system use by identifying facilitator or barrier to acceptance from the perspective of healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was used in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The literature search was conducted on two electronic databases, Scopus and MEDLINE through PubMed, limiting the publication timeframe from January 2013 to December 2023. Moreover, a developed search strategy was used based on keywords and MeSH terms derived from the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) components. The inclusion criteria were studies that discussed information system in healthcare, incorporated healthcare professionals who directly engaged with health information system (HIS), conducted within healthcare settings, identified facilitator or barrier to the use of information system in healthcare, and were available in full-text English. Barrier and facilitator were considered as factors impeding and promoting HIS use, respectively. The scoping review adopted a thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that a total of 79 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. A total of 16 distinct facilitators and 16 barriers were identified, which were then grouped into four categories, comprising colleague and social support, organizational, individual, as well as technological and technical contexts. The most frequently mentioned facilitator was usefulness and simplification of daily tasks, while the predominant barrier was lack of technical support.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The systematic mapping of facilitator and barrier provided a foundation for policymakers and healthcare professionals in decision-making processes to enhance acceptance HIS.</p>","PeriodicalId":16357,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","volume":"18 ","pages":"3901-3920"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12248237/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facilitator and Barrier to Health Information System Use from Health Professionals Perspective: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nur Yuliasih, Qisty A Khoiry, Sofa D Alfian, Auliya A Suwantika, Rizky Abdulah\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JMDH.S515295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to present factors that potentially influenced system use by identifying facilitator or barrier to acceptance from the perspective of healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was used in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The literature search was conducted on two electronic databases, Scopus and MEDLINE through PubMed, limiting the publication timeframe from January 2013 to December 2023. Moreover, a developed search strategy was used based on keywords and MeSH terms derived from the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) components. The inclusion criteria were studies that discussed information system in healthcare, incorporated healthcare professionals who directly engaged with health information system (HIS), conducted within healthcare settings, identified facilitator or barrier to the use of information system in healthcare, and were available in full-text English. Barrier and facilitator were considered as factors impeding and promoting HIS use, respectively. The scoping review adopted a thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that a total of 79 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. A total of 16 distinct facilitators and 16 barriers were identified, which were then grouped into four categories, comprising colleague and social support, organizational, individual, as well as technological and technical contexts. The most frequently mentioned facilitator was usefulness and simplification of daily tasks, while the predominant barrier was lack of technical support.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The systematic mapping of facilitator and barrier provided a foundation for policymakers and healthcare professionals in decision-making processes to enhance acceptance HIS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"3901-3920\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12248237/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S515295\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S515295","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在从医疗保健专业人员的角度,通过确定接受的促进因素或障碍,提出潜在影响系统使用的因素。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价(PRISMA-ScR)指南的首选报告项目进行范围评价。通过PubMed对Scopus和MEDLINE两个电子数据库进行文献检索,将发表时间限制在2013年1月至2023年12月。此外,基于人口、概念和上下文(PCC)组件衍生的关键词和MeSH术语,开发了一种搜索策略。纳入标准是讨论医疗保健信息系统的研究,纳入直接参与医疗信息系统(HIS)的医疗保健专业人员,在医疗保健环境中进行的研究,确定在医疗保健中使用信息系统的促进因素或障碍,并以全文英文提供。障碍和促进因素分别被认为是阻碍和促进HIS使用的因素。范围审查采用了专题分析。结果:结果显示,共有79项研究符合纳入标准,被纳入本综述。总共确定了16个不同的促进因素和16个障碍,然后将其分为四类,包括同事和社会支持、组织、个人以及技术和技术背景。最常提到的促进因素是日常任务的有用性和简化,而主要障碍是缺乏技术支持。结论:系统地绘制促进因素和障碍,为决策者和卫生保健专业人员在决策过程中提高医疗卫生系统的接受度提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Facilitator and Barrier to Health Information System Use from Health Professionals Perspective: A Scoping Review.

Objective: This study aimed to present factors that potentially influenced system use by identifying facilitator or barrier to acceptance from the perspective of healthcare professionals.

Methods: A scoping review was used in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The literature search was conducted on two electronic databases, Scopus and MEDLINE through PubMed, limiting the publication timeframe from January 2013 to December 2023. Moreover, a developed search strategy was used based on keywords and MeSH terms derived from the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) components. The inclusion criteria were studies that discussed information system in healthcare, incorporated healthcare professionals who directly engaged with health information system (HIS), conducted within healthcare settings, identified facilitator or barrier to the use of information system in healthcare, and were available in full-text English. Barrier and facilitator were considered as factors impeding and promoting HIS use, respectively. The scoping review adopted a thematic analysis.

Results: The results showed that a total of 79 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. A total of 16 distinct facilitators and 16 barriers were identified, which were then grouped into four categories, comprising colleague and social support, organizational, individual, as well as technological and technical contexts. The most frequently mentioned facilitator was usefulness and simplification of daily tasks, while the predominant barrier was lack of technical support.

Conclusion: The systematic mapping of facilitator and barrier provided a foundation for policymakers and healthcare professionals in decision-making processes to enhance acceptance HIS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
287
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (JMDH) aims to represent and publish research in healthcare areas delivered by practitioners of different disciplines. This includes studies and reviews conducted by multidisciplinary teams as well as research which evaluates or reports the results or conduct of such teams or healthcare processes in general. The journal covers a very wide range of areas and we welcome submissions from practitioners at all levels and from all over the world. Good healthcare is not bounded by person, place or time and the journal aims to reflect this. The JMDH is published as an open-access journal to allow this wide range of practical, patient relevant research to be immediately available to practitioners who can access and use it immediately upon publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信