Scholarlink

Background <p>Hospital Information Systems (HIS) play a pivotal role in improving healthcare delivery by minimizing errors, increasing efficiency, and enhancing user satisfaction. Post-implementation usability evaluation is essential for optimizing these systems. This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis and comparative analysis of usability evaluation methods and tools applied across different HIS subsystems, offering evidence-based recommendations to inform future system design and research directions.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, SID, Magiran, Elmnet, and Google (first 10 pages) on January 14, 2024, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. From 21,592 records, 41 studies met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies applied quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods to evaluate HIS or its subsystems (e.g. NIS, LIS, CPOE). Data extraction and quality appraisal (using a modified Downs &amp; Black checklist) were performed independently by two reviewers.</p> Results <p>Among 41 included studies, user testing (UT) and heuristic evaluation (HE) were the most frequently applied methods (each in 34% of studies). The most commonly used tools were standardized questionnaires (40%) and checklists (36%), with SUS and Nielsen’s heuristics being predominant. Usability criteria assessed included user satisfaction (45%), efficiency (45%), error reduction (40%), learnability (19%), and flexibility (16%). HIS subsystems such as NIS (20%), CPOE (12%), and LIS (7%) were the most frequently evaluated. Geographically, 61% of the studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries, with Iran accounting for the majority (56%), and most research was published between 2016 and 2020 (41%).</p> Conclusion <p>This review highlights methodological trends and gaps in HIS usability research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods enhances the accuracy of usability assessments. Future research should adopt AI-based evaluation tools, simulate clinical workflows, and address underexplored subsystems and criteria (e.g. learnability, flexibility) to improve HIS design and implementation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Usability evaluation methods for hospital information systems: a systematic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月21日

查看全文
  • Arezoo Dehghani Mahmoodabadi,
  • HamidReza Dehghan,
  • Khalil Kimiafar,
  • Mahtab Karami,
  • Seyyedeh Fatemeh Mousavi Baigi,
  • Mahdi Farsi Mehrabadi

摘要

Background

Hospital Information Systems (HIS) play a pivotal role in improving healthcare delivery by minimizing errors, increasing efficiency, and enhancing user satisfaction. Post-implementation usability evaluation is essential for optimizing these systems. This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis and comparative analysis of usability evaluation methods and tools applied across different HIS subsystems, offering evidence-based recommendations to inform future system design and research directions.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, SID, Magiran, Elmnet, and Google (first 10 pages) on January 14, 2024, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. From 21,592 records, 41 studies met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies applied quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods to evaluate HIS or its subsystems (e.g. NIS, LIS, CPOE). Data extraction and quality appraisal (using a modified Downs & Black checklist) were performed independently by two reviewers.

Results

Among 41 included studies, user testing (UT) and heuristic evaluation (HE) were the most frequently applied methods (each in 34% of studies). The most commonly used tools were standardized questionnaires (40%) and checklists (36%), with SUS and Nielsen’s heuristics being predominant. Usability criteria assessed included user satisfaction (45%), efficiency (45%), error reduction (40%), learnability (19%), and flexibility (16%). HIS subsystems such as NIS (20%), CPOE (12%), and LIS (7%) were the most frequently evaluated. Geographically, 61% of the studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries, with Iran accounting for the majority (56%), and most research was published between 2016 and 2020 (41%).

Conclusion

This review highlights methodological trends and gaps in HIS usability research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods enhances the accuracy of usability assessments. Future research should adopt AI-based evaluation tools, simulate clinical workflows, and address underexplored subsystems and criteria (e.g. learnability, flexibility) to improve HIS design and implementation.