Electronic Medical Record System Use and Determinants in Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The strategic plan of the Ethiopian Ministry of Health recommends an electronic medical record (EMR) system to enhance health care delivery and streamline data systems. However, only a few exhaustive systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted on the degree of EMR use in Ethiopia and the factors influencing success. This will emphasize the factors that make EMR effective and increase awareness of its widespread use among future implementers in Ethiopia. Objective This study aims to determine the pooled estimate of EMR use and success determinants among health professionals in Ethiopia. Methods We developed a protocol and searched PubMed, Web of Sciences, African Journals OnLine, Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. To assess the quality of each included study, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool using 9 criteria. The applicable data were extracted using Microsoft Excel 2019, and the data were then analyzed using Stata software (version 11; StataCorp). The presence of total heterogeneity across included studies was calculated using the index of heterogeneity I2 statistics. The pooled size of EMR use was estimated using a random effect model with a 95% CI. Results After reviewing 11,026 research papers, 5 papers with a combined total of 2439 health workers were included in the evaluation and meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of EMR usage in Ethiopia was 51.85% (95% CI 37.14%-66.55%). The subgroup study found that the northern Ethiopian region had the greatest EMR utilization rate (58.75%) and that higher (54.99%) utilization was also seen in publications published after 2016. Age groups <30 years, access to an EMR manual, EMR-related training, and managerial support were identified factors associated with EMR use among health workers. Conclusions The use of EMR systems in Ethiopia is relatively low. Belonging to a young age group, accessing an EMR manual, receiving EMR-related training, and managerial support were identified as factors associated with EMR use among health workers. As a result, to increase the use of EMRs by health care providers, it is essential to provide management support and an EMR training program and make the EMR manual accessible to health professionals.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".