Effect of electronic health records on doctor-patient relationship in Arabian gulf countries: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The electronic health record (EHR) has been widely implemented internationally as a tool to improve health and healthcare delivery. However, EHR implementation has been comparatively slow amongst hospitals in the Arabian Gulf countries. This gradual uptake may be linked to prevailing opinions amongst medical practitioners. Until now, no systematic review has been conducted to identify the impact of EHRs on doctor-patient relationships and attitudes in the Arabian Gulf countries. Objective: To understand the impact of EHR use on patient-doctor relationships and communication in the Arabian Gulf countries. Design: A systematic review of English language publications was performed using PRISMA chart guidelines between 1990 and 2023. Methods: Electronic database search (Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, HMIC, EMRIM, and PsycINFO) and reference searching restricted to the six Arabian Gulf countries only. MeSH terms and keywords related to electronic health records, doctor-patient communication, and relationship were used. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment was performed. Results: 18 studies fulfilled the criteria to be included in the systematic review. They were published between 1992 and 2023. Overall, a positive impact of EHR uptake was reported within the Gulf countries studied. This included improvement in the quality and performance of physicians, as well as improved accuracy in monitoring patient health. On the other hand, a notable negative impact was a general perception of physician attention shifted away from the patients themselves and towards data entry tasks (e.g., details of the patients and their education at the time of the consultation). Conclusion: The implementation of EHR systems is beneficial for effective care delivery by doctors in Gulf countries despite some patients' perception of decreased attention. The use of EHR assists doctors with recording patient details, including medication and treatment procedures, as well as their outcomes. Based on this study, the authors conclude that widespread EHR implementation is highly recommended, yet specific training should be provided, and the subsequent effect on adoption rates by all users must be evaluated (particularly physicians). The COVID-19 Pandemic showed the great value of EHR in accessing information and consulting patients remotely.
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 | 0.016 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".