How does Canada stack up? A bibliometric analysis of the primary healthcare electronic medical record literature.

Amanda L Terry, Moira Stewart, Martin Fortin, Sabrina T Wong, Maureen Kennedy, Fred Burge, Richard Birtwhistle, Inese Grava-Gubins, Greg Webster, Amardeep Thind
{"title":"How does Canada stack up? A bibliometric analysis of the primary healthcare electronic medical record literature.","authors":"Amanda L Terry,&nbsp;Moira Stewart,&nbsp;Martin Fortin,&nbsp;Sabrina T Wong,&nbsp;Maureen Kennedy,&nbsp;Fred Burge,&nbsp;Richard Birtwhistle,&nbsp;Inese Grava-Gubins,&nbsp;Greg Webster,&nbsp;Amardeep Thind","doi":"10.14236/jhi.v20i4.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Major initiatives are underway in Canada which are designed to increase electronic medical record (EMR) implementation and maximise its use in primary health care. These developments need to be supported by sufficient evidence from the literature, particularly relevant research conducted in the Canadian context.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study sought to quantify this lack of research by: (1) identifying and describing the primary health care EMR literature; and (2) comparing the Canadian and international primary healthcare EMR literature on the basis of content and publication levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven bibliographic databases were searched using primary health care and EMR keywords. Publication abstracts were reviewed and categorised. First author affiliation was used to identify country of origin. Proportions of Canadian- and non-Canadian-authored publications were compared using Fisher's exact test. For countries having 10 or more primary healthcare EMR publications, publications per 10 000 researchers were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After exclusions, 750 publications were identified. More than one-third used primary healthcare EMRs as a study data source. Twenty-two (3%) were Canadian-authored. There were significantly different publication levels in three categories between Canadian- and non-Canadian-authored publications. Based on publications per researchers, the Netherlands ranked first, while Canada ranked eighth of nine countries with 10 or more publications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A relatively small body of literature focused on EMRs in primary health care exists; publications by Canadian authors were low. This study highlights the need to develop a strong evidence base to support the effective implementation and use of EMRs in Canadian primary health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":30591,"journal":{"name":"Informatics in Primary Care","volume":"20 4","pages":"233-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics in Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v20i4.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Background: Major initiatives are underway in Canada which are designed to increase electronic medical record (EMR) implementation and maximise its use in primary health care. These developments need to be supported by sufficient evidence from the literature, particularly relevant research conducted in the Canadian context.

Objectives: This study sought to quantify this lack of research by: (1) identifying and describing the primary health care EMR literature; and (2) comparing the Canadian and international primary healthcare EMR literature on the basis of content and publication levels.

Methods: Seven bibliographic databases were searched using primary health care and EMR keywords. Publication abstracts were reviewed and categorised. First author affiliation was used to identify country of origin. Proportions of Canadian- and non-Canadian-authored publications were compared using Fisher's exact test. For countries having 10 or more primary healthcare EMR publications, publications per 10 000 researchers were calculated.

Results: After exclusions, 750 publications were identified. More than one-third used primary healthcare EMRs as a study data source. Twenty-two (3%) were Canadian-authored. There were significantly different publication levels in three categories between Canadian- and non-Canadian-authored publications. Based on publications per researchers, the Netherlands ranked first, while Canada ranked eighth of nine countries with 10 or more publications.

Conclusions: A relatively small body of literature focused on EMRs in primary health care exists; publications by Canadian authors were low. This study highlights the need to develop a strong evidence base to support the effective implementation and use of EMRs in Canadian primary health care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大的情况如何?初级保健电子病历文献的文献计量学分析。
背景:加拿大正在采取重大举措,旨在加强电子病历(EMR)的实施,并最大限度地利用其在初级卫生保健中的应用。这些发展需要有充分的文献证据支持,特别是在加拿大背景下进行的相关研究。目的:本研究试图通过以下方式量化这一研究缺失:(1)识别和描述初级卫生保健电子病历文献;(2)比较加拿大和国际初级卫生保健电子病历文献的内容和发表水平。方法:采用初级卫生保健和电子病历关键词对7个文献数据库进行检索。对出版物摘要进行审查和分类。第一作者从属关系被用来确定原产国。使用Fisher的精确检验比较了加拿大和非加拿大撰写的出版物的比例。对于拥有10个或更多初级卫生保健电子病历出版物的国家,计算每10,000名研究人员的出版物。结果:排除后,共发现750篇文献。超过三分之一的人使用初级卫生保健电子病历作为研究数据源。22例(3%)由加拿大人撰写。在加拿大和非加拿大撰写的出版物中,有三个类别的出版水平显着不同。在人均发表论文数方面,荷兰排名第一,加拿大在发表论文数超过10篇的9个国家中排名第八。结论:关注初级卫生保健中电子病历的文献相对较少;加拿大作者的出版物较少。这项研究强调需要建立一个强有力的证据基础,以支持在加拿大初级卫生保健中有效实施和使用电子病历。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring an informed decision-making framework using in-home sensors: older adults' perceptions. Undertaking sociotechnical evaluations of health information technologies. Privacy protection for personal health information and shared care records. Coding errors in an analysis of the impact of pay-for-performance on the care for long-term cardiovascular disease: a case study. Effective pseudonymisation and explicit statements of public interest to ensure the benefits of sharing health data for research, quality improvement and health service management outweigh the risks.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1