Literature DB >> 16903665

EHR and other IT adoption among physicians: results of a large-scale statewide analysis.

Nir Menachemi1, Robert G Brooks.   

Abstract

Despite a national push toward the adoption of health information technologies, much is still unknown about the use of IT in physician's offices. We surveyed all primary care physicians and a 25 percent stratified random sample of other specialists (total n=14,921) in Florida to better understand current trends and factors related to the use of IT in the ambulatory setting. Data was analyzed using logistic regression modeling techniques to compute adjusted odds ratios. Covariates included practice size, medical training, practice type, age, race, and gender Routine office computer use (80 percent) was found to be very common for administrative functions. The use of quality enhancing technologies such as PDAs (37.5 percent), use of e-mail with patients (16.6 percent) and EHR (23.7 percent) was less common. Overall, large practice size, specialty practice, physician age and gender, and multi-specialty practice affiliation were significantly related to the use of many, but not all, of these IT applications in the ambulatory setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16903665

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Healthc Inf Manag        ISSN: 1099-811X


  19 in total

1.  Use of health information technology by office-based physicians: comparison of two contemporaneous public-use physician surveys.

Authors:  Chenghui Li
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2011-10-01

2.  Racial differences in the usage of information technology: evidence from a national physician survey.

Authors:  Doohee Lee; Phil Rutsohn
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2012-04-01

3.  Correlates of electronic health record adoption in office practices: a statewide survey.

Authors:  Steven R Simon; Rainu Kaushal; Paul D Cleary; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Eric G Poon; E John Orav; Helen G Lo; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-10-26       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  The relationship between electronic health record use and quality of care over time.

Authors:  Li Zhou; Christine S Soran; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; E John Orav; David W Bates; Steven R Simon
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Resistance is futile: but it is slowing the pace of EHR adoption nonetheless.

Authors:  Eric W Ford; Nir Menachemi; Lori T Peterson; Timothy R Huerta
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Physician specialty and variations in adoption of electronic health records.

Authors:  Z M Grinspan; S Banerjee; R Kaushal; L M Kern
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  The relationship between local hospital IT capabilities and physician EMR adoption.

Authors:  Nir Menachemi; Michael Matthews; Eric W Ford; Neset Hikmet; Robert G Brooks
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.460

8.  Acceptance and barriers to access of occupational e-mental health: cross-sectional findings from a health-risk population of employees.

Authors:  Severin Hennemann; Michael Witthöft; Matthias Bethge; Katja Spanier; Manfred E Beutel; Rüdiger Zwerenz
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 3.015

9.  Physician beliefs about the impact of meaningful use of the EHR: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  S Emani; D Y Ting; M Healey; S R Lipsitz; A S Karson; J S Einbinder; L Leinen; V Suric; D W Bates
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 2.342

10.  Smartphone applications for depression: a systematic literature review and a survey of health care professionals' attitudes towards their use in clinical practice.

Authors:  Ariane Kerst; Jürgen Zielasek; Wolfgang Gaebel
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 5.270

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.