Extended use of electronic health records by primary care physicians: Does the electronic health record artefact matter?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deployment of electronic health record systems is deemed to play a decisive role in the transformations currently being implemented in primary care medical practices. This study aims to characterize electronic health record systems from the perspective of family physicians. To achieve this goal, we conducted a survey of physicians practising in private clinics located in Quebec, Canada. We used valid responses from 331 respondents who were found to be representative of the larger population. Data provided by the physicians using the top three electronic health record software products were analysed in order to obtain statistically adequate sub-sample sizes. Significant differences were observed among the three products with regard to their functional capability. The extent to which each of the electronic health record functionalities are used by physicians also varied significantly. Our results confirm that the electronic health record artefact 'does matter', its clinical functionalities explaining why certain physicians make more extended use of their system than others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it