Impact of artificial intelligence on electronic health record-related burnouts among healthcare professionals: systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has revolutionized modern clinical practice, increasing efficiency, accessibility, and quality of care. Nevertheless, EHR-related workload has been considered as a significant contributor to healthcare professionals' burnout, a syndrome associated with emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. As modern health system explores technological solutions, artificial intelligence (AI) has gained attention for its potential to facilitate documentation processes and alleviate cognitive burden. This systematic review aims to explore and understand the impact of artificial intelligence on burnout associated with electronic health records among healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Relevant studies published between 2019 and 2025 were retrieved from three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy included three main domains: artificial intelligence, electronic health records, and healthcare professional burnout. Eligible included studies are peer-reviewed original research articles that evaluated the impact of AI-based technologies on burnout among healthcare professionals. The screening and selection processes were carried out by following the PRISMA framework. Methodological quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Results: Of the 287 records initially identified, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of identified studies were conducted in the United States and Canada. The identified interventions were categorized into four domains: ambient artificial intelligence scribes, clinical decision support systems, large language models, and natural language processing tools. Most studies focused on mitigating documentation or inbox-related burdens and reported positive outcomes, including decreased documentation time, enhanced workflow efficiency, and reduced symptoms of burnout among healthcare professionals. Nonetheless, several methodological limitations were observed, including the absence of control groups, small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods, which constrain the generalizability of the findings. Discussion: The integration of artificial intelligence into electronic health record systems may have potential to alleviate documentation burden and inbox management burden. Although preliminary findings are promising, further methodologically robust research is necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes, assess usability across diverse clinical contexts, and ensure the safe and effective implementation of AI technologies in routine healthcare practice. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/pevfj.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».